DLBCL

U.S. government advisers expressed discomfort with Acrotech Biopharma’s 2030 target completion date for a study meant to prove the clinical benefits of two lymphoma drugs that the company has been selling for years.

At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.

“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.

Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.

The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.

Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.

Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.

The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.

The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.

For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.

At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.

“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
 

‘Dangerous precedent’

The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.

For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.

But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.

And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.

“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.

The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.

Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.

ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.

“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.

Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.

Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.

Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”

U.S. government advisers expressed discomfort with Acrotech Biopharma’s 2030 target completion date for a study meant to prove the clinical benefits of two lymphoma drugs that the company has been selling for years.

At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.

“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.

Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.

The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.

Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.

Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.

The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.

The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.

For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.

At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.

“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
 

‘Dangerous precedent’

The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.

For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.

But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.

And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.

“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.

The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.

Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.

ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.

“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.

Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.

Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.

Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”

U.S. government advisers expressed discomfort with Acrotech Biopharma’s 2030 target completion date for a study meant to prove the clinical benefits of two lymphoma drugs that the company has been selling for years.

At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.

“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.

Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.

The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.

Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.

Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.

The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.

The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.

For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.

At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.

“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
 

‘Dangerous precedent’

The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.

For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.

But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.

And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.

“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.

The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.

Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.

ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.

“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.

Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.

Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.

Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

NEW YORK – Treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, most patients with relapsed and refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) achieved better outcomes than those receiving autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT), according to evidence presented at the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.

DLBCL is characterized by the National Institutes of Health as an aggressive malignancy and the most common lymphoma. Research presented at the conference indicated that 60%70% of patients were cured with six to eight cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (R-CHOP).

courtesy MD Anderson Cancer Center

“In the past, if a relapsed of refractory DLBCL patient couldn’t get a transplant, they were likely headed for palliative care. CAR T-cell therapy is no longer experimental. Not only can we offer it to patients who are ineligible for transplant (and manage the side effects), the treatment has proven to offer better overall survival and cure rates, even in patients who eligible for ASCT,” said presenter Jason Westin, MD, director of the lymphoma clinical research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The ZUMA-7 phase 3trial among patients with early r/r DLBCL demonstrated the superiority of CAR T-cell therapy with the agent, axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA, Kita Pharma) versus standard of care (chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT). Those in the axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) group had a median progression free survival (PFS) of 14.7 months and an estimated 4-year overall survival (OS) rate of 54.6% compared to 3.7 months and 46% in the control group.

Patients treated with axi-cel experienced a higher rate of adverse events (AE) grade 3 of higher, compared with the ACST group (91% vs. 83%) Furthermore, patients who received axi-cel had cytokine release syndrome (6%) and neurologic events in (21%) grade 3 or higher, compared with 0% and less than 1% in the ASCT group.

At the conference, Dr. Westin’s copanelist Jennifer Amengual, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, interpreted the data on adverse events (AEs) from ZUMA-7 to mean that if a patient is especially susceptible to CAR T side effects, then ASCT could be preferred. She also outlined a second strategy that shows promise when a patient has either failed CAR T and ASCT or whose frailty demands an approach that avoids AEs.

Dr. Amengual cited a study in which patients with r/r DLBCL were treated with the bispecific antibody glofitamab (Columvi/Roche), which induced a complete response in 39% of patients at a median follow-up of 12.6 months and a 12-month PFS rate of 37%. Those treated with the agent experienced cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events grade 3 or higher, at a rate of 4% and 3% respectively.

“Efforts to make off-the-shelf CAR T therapy are ongoing. With some fine-tuning the PFS and OS with bispecific antibodies will likely approach or exceed both CAR T and ACST. The fact that they could come right off the shelf, rather than having to be tailor made for each patient, gives them a huge advantage in terms of cost and availability, while maintaining what appears to be an excellent safety profile” said Morton Colman, MD, professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and chair of the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.

Dr. Amengual disclosed ties with Astra Zeneca and Incyte. Dr. Westin reported ties with Abbie, ADC therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GenMad, Hanssen, Kite/Gilead, Morphosys/Incyte, Novartis, Nurix, Regeneron, and SeaGen. Dr. Coleman had no disclosures.

NEW YORK – Treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, most patients with relapsed and refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) achieved better outcomes than those receiving autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT), according to evidence presented at the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.

DLBCL is characterized by the National Institutes of Health as an aggressive malignancy and the most common lymphoma. Research presented at the conference indicated that 60%70% of patients were cured with six to eight cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (R-CHOP).

courtesy MD Anderson Cancer Center

“In the past, if a relapsed of refractory DLBCL patient couldn’t get a transplant, they were likely headed for palliative care. CAR T-cell therapy is no longer experimental. Not only can we offer it to patients who are ineligible for transplant (and manage the side effects), the treatment has proven to offer better overall survival and cure rates, even in patients who eligible for ASCT,” said presenter Jason Westin, MD, director of the lymphoma clinical research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The ZUMA-7 phase 3trial among patients with early r/r DLBCL demonstrated the superiority of CAR T-cell therapy with the agent, axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA, Kita Pharma) versus standard of care (chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT). Those in the axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) group had a median progression free survival (PFS) of 14.7 months and an estimated 4-year overall survival (OS) rate of 54.6% compared to 3.7 months and 46% in the control group.

Patients treated with axi-cel experienced a higher rate of adverse events (AE) grade 3 of higher, compared with the ACST group (91% vs. 83%) Furthermore, patients who received axi-cel had cytokine release syndrome (6%) and neurologic events in (21%) grade 3 or higher, compared with 0% and less than 1% in the ASCT group.

At the conference, Dr. Westin’s copanelist Jennifer Amengual, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, interpreted the data on adverse events (AEs) from ZUMA-7 to mean that if a patient is especially susceptible to CAR T side effects, then ASCT could be preferred. She also outlined a second strategy that shows promise when a patient has either failed CAR T and ASCT or whose frailty demands an approach that avoids AEs.

Dr. Amengual cited a study in which patients with r/r DLBCL were treated with the bispecific antibody glofitamab (Columvi/Roche), which induced a complete response in 39% of patients at a median follow-up of 12.6 months and a 12-month PFS rate of 37%. Those treated with the agent experienced cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events grade 3 or higher, at a rate of 4% and 3% respectively.

“Efforts to make off-the-shelf CAR T therapy are ongoing. With some fine-tuning the PFS and OS with bispecific antibodies will likely approach or exceed both CAR T and ACST. The fact that they could come right off the shelf, rather than having to be tailor made for each patient, gives them a huge advantage in terms of cost and availability, while maintaining what appears to be an excellent safety profile” said Morton Colman, MD, professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and chair of the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.

Dr. Amengual disclosed ties with Astra Zeneca and Incyte. Dr. Westin reported ties with Abbie, ADC therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GenMad, Hanssen, Kite/Gilead, Morphosys/Incyte, Novartis, Nurix, Regeneron, and SeaGen. Dr. Coleman had no disclosures.

NEW YORK – Treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, most patients with relapsed and refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) achieved better outcomes than those receiving autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT), according to evidence presented at the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.

DLBCL is characterized by the National Institutes of Health as an aggressive malignancy and the most common lymphoma. Research presented at the conference indicated that 60%70% of patients were cured with six to eight cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone (R-CHOP).

courtesy MD Anderson Cancer Center

“In the past, if a relapsed of refractory DLBCL patient couldn’t get a transplant, they were likely headed for palliative care. CAR T-cell therapy is no longer experimental. Not only can we offer it to patients who are ineligible for transplant (and manage the side effects), the treatment has proven to offer better overall survival and cure rates, even in patients who eligible for ASCT,” said presenter Jason Westin, MD, director of the lymphoma clinical research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The ZUMA-7 phase 3trial among patients with early r/r DLBCL demonstrated the superiority of CAR T-cell therapy with the agent, axicabtagene ciloleucel (YESCARTA, Kita Pharma) versus standard of care (chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT). Those in the axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) group had a median progression free survival (PFS) of 14.7 months and an estimated 4-year overall survival (OS) rate of 54.6% compared to 3.7 months and 46% in the control group.

Patients treated with axi-cel experienced a higher rate of adverse events (AE) grade 3 of higher, compared with the ACST group (91% vs. 83%) Furthermore, patients who received axi-cel had cytokine release syndrome (6%) and neurologic events in (21%) grade 3 or higher, compared with 0% and less than 1% in the ASCT group.

At the conference, Dr. Westin’s copanelist Jennifer Amengual, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, interpreted the data on adverse events (AEs) from ZUMA-7 to mean that if a patient is especially susceptible to CAR T side effects, then ASCT could be preferred. She also outlined a second strategy that shows promise when a patient has either failed CAR T and ASCT or whose frailty demands an approach that avoids AEs.

Dr. Amengual cited a study in which patients with r/r DLBCL were treated with the bispecific antibody glofitamab (Columvi/Roche), which induced a complete response in 39% of patients at a median follow-up of 12.6 months and a 12-month PFS rate of 37%. Those treated with the agent experienced cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events grade 3 or higher, at a rate of 4% and 3% respectively.

“Efforts to make off-the-shelf CAR T therapy are ongoing. With some fine-tuning the PFS and OS with bispecific antibodies will likely approach or exceed both CAR T and ACST. The fact that they could come right off the shelf, rather than having to be tailor made for each patient, gives them a huge advantage in terms of cost and availability, while maintaining what appears to be an excellent safety profile” said Morton Colman, MD, professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and chair of the 2023 Lymphoma, Leukemia, and Myeloma Congress.

Dr. Amengual disclosed ties with Astra Zeneca and Incyte. Dr. Westin reported ties with Abbie, ADC therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, GenMad, Hanssen, Kite/Gilead, Morphosys/Incyte, Novartis, Nurix, Regeneron, and SeaGen. Dr. Coleman had no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Radiation has become a crucial component of treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) over the past 25 years. But radiologists presenting at an annual conference cautioned colleagues to keep the limitations of radiology in mind and not to assume that it’s always a necessary adjunct to chemotherapy.

For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.

Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.

Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”

These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.

Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”

What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”

According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.

In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.

“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”

If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.

What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.

In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”

In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.

She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.

As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.

Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.

She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.

Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
 

SAN DIEGO – Radiation has become a crucial component of treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) over the past 25 years. But radiologists presenting at an annual conference cautioned colleagues to keep the limitations of radiology in mind and not to assume that it’s always a necessary adjunct to chemotherapy.

For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.

Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.

Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”

These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.

Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”

What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”

According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.

In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.

“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”

If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.

What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.

In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”

In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.

She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.

As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.

Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.

She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.

Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
 

SAN DIEGO – Radiation has become a crucial component of treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) over the past 25 years. But radiologists presenting at an annual conference cautioned colleagues to keep the limitations of radiology in mind and not to assume that it’s always a necessary adjunct to chemotherapy.

For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.

Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.

Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”

These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.

Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”

What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”

According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.

In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.

“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”

If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.

What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.

In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”

In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.

She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.

As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.

Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.

She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.

Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
 

FROM SOHO 2023

It may be possible for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma to safely skip their interim PET-CT scan (PET2) following two cycles of frontline brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris), according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.

These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.

Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.

However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.

Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.

In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.

In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.

Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.

During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.

Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”

In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

FROM SOHO 2023

It may be possible for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma to safely skip their interim PET-CT scan (PET2) following two cycles of frontline brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris), according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.

These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.

Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.

However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.

Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.

In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.

In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.

Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.

During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.

Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”

In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

FROM SOHO 2023

It may be possible for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma to safely skip their interim PET-CT scan (PET2) following two cycles of frontline brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris), according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.

These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.

Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.

However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.

Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.

In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.

In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.

Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.

During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.

Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”

In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, has released a tool to help hematologists evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit expected from new blood cancer treatments.

It consists of 11 2- to 3-page forms with checklists to grade treatment trials on the extent to which they meet efficacy and safety thresholds. Each of the 11 forms covers a specific trial scenario, such as a randomized controlled trial with curative intent or a trial of a therapy that is not likely to be curative with a primary endpoint of overall survival.

Treatments with curative intent are graded A, B, or C, while treatments in the noncurative setting are graded on a descending scale from 5 to 1. Scores of A and B in the curative setting and 5 and 4 in the noncurative setting represent substantial benefit.

On the form for RCTs with curative intent, for instance, a survival improvement of 5% or more garners an A but an improvement of less than 3% gets a C. Scores are also annotated for serious acute and/or persistent toxicity if present.

The tool, dubbed the ESMO-MCBS:H (European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale: Hematology), is explained in an article published in Annals of Oncology. The evaluation forms are available online.

The idea behind the work is to help health care professionals and others to more “accurately assess the value of and prioritise therapies for patients with blood cancers. For clinicians, ESMO-MCBS:H will aid in their clinical decision-making and in the development of evidence-based practice and guidelines,” ESMO said in a press release.

To develop ESMO-MCBS:H, the group tailored its tool for evaluating solid tumor therapies, the ESMO-MCBS, to account for the sometimes different endpoints used in hematologic malignancy trials and the very indolent nature of some blood cancers, such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers development of mature data.

Specific changes include adding a new evaluation form to grade single-arm trials with curative intent, such as those used for CAR-T-cell therapies; incorporating molecular surrogate endpoints used in CML trials; and adding a way to grade outcomes for indolent cancers, among others.

The development process included applying the solid tumor tool to 80 blood cancer studies to identify shortcomings and improve its applicability. The final tool was field tested with 51 international experts from EHA and ESMO who largely agreed on the reasonableness of the trial scores.

ESMO said it expects ESMO-MCBS:H will be useful. The solid tumor tool, first published in 2015, is used by the World Health Organization to screen medications for its essential medicines list as well as by ESMO to generate guidelines and oncology centers across Europe to help with resource allocation decisions.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, has released a tool to help hematologists evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit expected from new blood cancer treatments.

It consists of 11 2- to 3-page forms with checklists to grade treatment trials on the extent to which they meet efficacy and safety thresholds. Each of the 11 forms covers a specific trial scenario, such as a randomized controlled trial with curative intent or a trial of a therapy that is not likely to be curative with a primary endpoint of overall survival.

Treatments with curative intent are graded A, B, or C, while treatments in the noncurative setting are graded on a descending scale from 5 to 1. Scores of A and B in the curative setting and 5 and 4 in the noncurative setting represent substantial benefit.

On the form for RCTs with curative intent, for instance, a survival improvement of 5% or more garners an A but an improvement of less than 3% gets a C. Scores are also annotated for serious acute and/or persistent toxicity if present.

The tool, dubbed the ESMO-MCBS:H (European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale: Hematology), is explained in an article published in Annals of Oncology. The evaluation forms are available online.

The idea behind the work is to help health care professionals and others to more “accurately assess the value of and prioritise therapies for patients with blood cancers. For clinicians, ESMO-MCBS:H will aid in their clinical decision-making and in the development of evidence-based practice and guidelines,” ESMO said in a press release.

To develop ESMO-MCBS:H, the group tailored its tool for evaluating solid tumor therapies, the ESMO-MCBS, to account for the sometimes different endpoints used in hematologic malignancy trials and the very indolent nature of some blood cancers, such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers development of mature data.

Specific changes include adding a new evaluation form to grade single-arm trials with curative intent, such as those used for CAR-T-cell therapies; incorporating molecular surrogate endpoints used in CML trials; and adding a way to grade outcomes for indolent cancers, among others.

The development process included applying the solid tumor tool to 80 blood cancer studies to identify shortcomings and improve its applicability. The final tool was field tested with 51 international experts from EHA and ESMO who largely agreed on the reasonableness of the trial scores.

ESMO said it expects ESMO-MCBS:H will be useful. The solid tumor tool, first published in 2015, is used by the World Health Organization to screen medications for its essential medicines list as well as by ESMO to generate guidelines and oncology centers across Europe to help with resource allocation decisions.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), in collaboration with the European Hematology Association, has released a tool to help hematologists evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit expected from new blood cancer treatments.

It consists of 11 2- to 3-page forms with checklists to grade treatment trials on the extent to which they meet efficacy and safety thresholds. Each of the 11 forms covers a specific trial scenario, such as a randomized controlled trial with curative intent or a trial of a therapy that is not likely to be curative with a primary endpoint of overall survival.

Treatments with curative intent are graded A, B, or C, while treatments in the noncurative setting are graded on a descending scale from 5 to 1. Scores of A and B in the curative setting and 5 and 4 in the noncurative setting represent substantial benefit.

On the form for RCTs with curative intent, for instance, a survival improvement of 5% or more garners an A but an improvement of less than 3% gets a C. Scores are also annotated for serious acute and/or persistent toxicity if present.

The tool, dubbed the ESMO-MCBS:H (European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale: Hematology), is explained in an article published in Annals of Oncology. The evaluation forms are available online.

The idea behind the work is to help health care professionals and others to more “accurately assess the value of and prioritise therapies for patients with blood cancers. For clinicians, ESMO-MCBS:H will aid in their clinical decision-making and in the development of evidence-based practice and guidelines,” ESMO said in a press release.

To develop ESMO-MCBS:H, the group tailored its tool for evaluating solid tumor therapies, the ESMO-MCBS, to account for the sometimes different endpoints used in hematologic malignancy trials and the very indolent nature of some blood cancers, such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers development of mature data.

Specific changes include adding a new evaluation form to grade single-arm trials with curative intent, such as those used for CAR-T-cell therapies; incorporating molecular surrogate endpoints used in CML trials; and adding a way to grade outcomes for indolent cancers, among others.

The development process included applying the solid tumor tool to 80 blood cancer studies to identify shortcomings and improve its applicability. The final tool was field tested with 51 international experts from EHA and ESMO who largely agreed on the reasonableness of the trial scores.

ESMO said it expects ESMO-MCBS:H will be useful. The solid tumor tool, first published in 2015, is used by the World Health Organization to screen medications for its essential medicines list as well as by ESMO to generate guidelines and oncology centers across Europe to help with resource allocation decisions.

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

CHICAGO – Fewer than 7% of patients newly diagnosed with cancer are tested for germline genetic mutations, and the percentage tested was even lower among racial and ethnic minorities, a huge study has found.

Information from germline genetic testing could affect a patient’s cancer care. For example, such testing could indicate that targeted therapies would be beneficial, and it would have implications for close relatives who may carry the same genes.

The finding that so few patients with newly diagnosed cancer were tested comes from an analysis of data on more than 1.3 million individuals across two U.S. states. The data were taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry.

The rate is “well below guideline recommendations,” said study presenter Allison W. Kurian, MD, department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

“Innovative care delivery” is needed to tackle the problem, including the streamlining of pretest counseling, making posttest counseling more widely available, and employing long-term follow-up to track patient outcomes, she suggested.

“I do think this is a time for creative solutions of a number of different kinds,” she said. She suggested that lessons could be learned from the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. She also noted that “there have been some interesting studies on embedding genetic counselors in oncology clinics.”

Dr. Kurian presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current results represent a “missed opportunity for decrease the population-level burden of cancer,” experts noted in an accompanying editorial.

“Clinicians should recommend testing to their patients and provide them with the information necessary to make informed decisions about whether to undergo testing,” Zsofia K. Stadler, MD, and Deborah Schrag, MD, MPH, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, wrote in their editorial.

They suggested novel approaches to widen access, such as use of point-of-care testing, telecounseling, and, in the future, chatbots to respond to patient questions.

“With greater emphasis on overcoming both health system and patient-level barriers to genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer, treatment outcomes will improve and cancer diagnoses and related deaths in family members will be prevented,” they concluded.

At the meeting, invited discussant Erin Frances Cobain, MD, assistant professor of medical oncology, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, referring to breast cancer as an example, said that progress has “stagnated” in recent years.

The study found a higher rate of gene testing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, at just over 20%.

Dr. Cobain argued that this was still too low. She pointed out that “a recent study suggested that over 60% of individuals with an incident cancer diagnosis would meet criteria for genetic testing by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

“This may be because testing is not offered, there may be poor access to genetic counseling resources, or patients may be offered testing but decline it,” she suggested.

One compelling reason to conduct genetic testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer is that it may show that they are candidates for treatment with PARP (poly[ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors, which “may have a direct impact on cancer-related mortality,” she pointed out.

“We need increased awareness and access to genetic testing resources for patients with breast cancer, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities,” she said.

Dr. Cobain also noted that finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was more likely among patients from racial and ethnic minorities than among White patients. She said such a finding “increases patient and physician anxiety,” and there may be “unclear optimal management recommendations for these patients.”
 

Details of the study

Germline genetic testing is “increasingly essential for cancer care,” Dr. Kurian said.

It is central to risk-adapted screening and secondary prevention, the use of targeted therapies, including PARP and checkpoint inhibitors, and cascade testing to identify at-risk relatives.

She pointed out that in clinical practice, testing has “evolved rapidly.” Panels include more and more genes. In addition, the cost of these tests is falling, and guidelines have become “more expansive.”

However, “little is known about genetic testing use and results,” Dr. Kurian noted.

The team therefore undertook the SEER-GeneLINK initiative, which involved patients aged ≥ 20 years who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, and who were reported to statewide SEER registries in California and Georgia.

The team looked for patients for whom germline genetic test results had been reported by the four laboratories that performed the majority of patient testing in the two states. Results were categorized as pathogenic, benign, or VUS.

The results were classified on the basis of current guidelines for testing and/or management as related to breast/ovarian cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, other hereditary cancers, or those with no guidelines for testing or management.

Dr. Kurian reported that from an overall population of 1,412,388 patients diagnosed with cancer, 1,369,660 were eligible for inclusion. Of those, about half (51.9%) were women, and the majority (86.3%) were aged 50 years or older.

Many of these patients (61.4%) were non-Hispanic White persons, and slightly fewer than half (49.8%) were deemed to be in medium or high poverty, as determined using U.S. Census tract levels.

Overall, germline genetic testing was performed in 93,052 (6.8%) of patients over the study period.

Women were more likely to have undergone germline mutation testing than men, at 13.9% vs. 2.2%, as were patients aged 20-49 years, at 22.1% vs. 8.2% for those aged 50-69 years, and 3.3% for those aged 70 years and older.

The number of genes for which testing was conducted increased from a median of 2 in 2013 to 34 in 2019. Rates of VUS increased more than that for pathologic variants and substantially more so in non-White patients.

By 2019, the ratio of VUS to pathologic variants stood at 1.7 among White patients, vs. 3.9 among Asian patients, 3.6 among Black patients, and 2.2 among Hispanic patients.

The majority of identified pathologic variants that were related to the diagnosed cancer and genes with testing and/or management guidelines accounted for 67.5% to 94.9% of such variants.

Regarding specific cancer diagnoses, Dr. Kurian said that over the course of the study period, testing rates consistently exceeded 50% only among male breast cancer patients.

There were rapid increases in testing for ovarian cancer, from 28.0% of cases in 2013 to 54.0% in 2019. For pancreatic cancer, rates increased from 1.0% to 19.0% over the same period, and for prostate cancer, rates increased from 0.1% to 4.0%. She suggested that these increases in rates may be related to the approval of PARP inhibitors for use in these indications.

However, there was little change in the rates of germline mutation testing for lung cancer patients, from 01% in 2013 to 0.8% in 2019, and for other cancers, from 0.3% to 2.0%.

The results also revealed racial and ethnic differences in testing after controlling for age, cancer type, and year. Over the course of the study period, 8.0% of White patients underwent genetic testing, compared with 6.0% each for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients and 5.0% for other patients (P < .001).

With regard specifically to male and female breast cancer and ovarian cancer, testing rates were 31% among White patients, 22% for Asian patients, 25% for Black patients, and 23% for Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Dr. Kurian acknowledged that the study is limited by a lack of testing from other laboratories and direct-to-consumer test data, although a recent survey suggested that this represents fewer than 5% of all germline genetic tests.

She also noted that the SEER registries do not collect data on family history or tumor sequencing.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Kurian has relationships with Adela, Ambry Genetics, Color Genomics, GeneDx/BioReference, Genentech, InVitae, and Myriad Genetics. Other authors report numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Cobain has ties with AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, bioTheranostics, and Immunomedics. Dr. Schrag has relationships with Merck, JAMA, AACR, and Grail. Dr. Stadler has ties with Adverum Biotechnologies, Genentech, Neurogene, Novartis, Optos Plc, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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

Oncology fellows who completed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training report that they feel more confident about responding to different types of discrimination, both when directed at them personally and when directed at others.

The finding comes from a survey conducted after the introduction of DEI training within the Yale Medical Oncology-Hematology Fellowship Program. The study was reported by Norin Ansari, MD, MPH, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Dr. Ansari emphasized the DEI curriculum in fellowship programs by highlighting the racial and gender disparities that exist among physicians.

“There is a significant representation problem – only 2%-3% of practicing oncologists are Black or Hispanic/Latino,” she said. “And that representation decreases with each stage in the pipeline of the workforce.”

Dr. Ansari also noted gender disparities in the oncologist workforce, reporting that about one-third of faculty positions are held by women.

The anonymous survey was sent to 29 fellows; 23 responded, including 8 first-year fellows and 13 senior fellows. Over 57% of respondents rated the importance of DEI education as 10 on a 10-point scale (mean, 8.6).

At the start of this year, the responses of senior fellows who had already received some DEI training during the previous year’s lecture series were compared with first-year fellows who had not had any fellowship DEI education.

First-year fellows reported a mean confidence score of 2.5/5 at navigating bias and microaggressions when experienced personally and a mean score of 2.9/5 when they were directed at others. Senior fellows reported mean confidence scores of 3 and 3.2, respectively.

Yale then compared longitudinal data on fellows’ comfort levels in navigating discrimination in 2021, 2022, and 2023 a month before the ASCO meeting.

Fellows were asked to rate their comfort level from 1 to 10 in navigating different types of discrimination, including racial inequality, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. In these three categories, fellows rated comfortability as a 5 in 2021 and as 7 in 2023 after the DEI training.

“Our first goal is to normalize talking about DEI and to recognize that different people in our workforce have different experiences and how we can be allies for them and for our patients,” Dr. Ansari said. “And I think for long-term goals we want to take stock of who’s at the table, who’s making decisions, and how does that affect our field, our science, and our patients.”

Yale designed the 3-year longitudinal curriculum with two annual core topics: upstander training and journal club for discussion and reflection. An additional two to three training sessions per year will focus on either race, gender, LGBTQ+, disability, religion, or implicit bias training.

The most popular topics among fellows were upstander training, cancer treatment and outcomes disparities, recruitment and retention, and career promotion and pay disparities.

The preferred platforms of content delivery were lectures from experts in the field, affinity groups or mentorship links, small group discussions, and advocacy education.

Gerald Hsu, MD, PhD, with the San Francisco VA Medical Center, discussed the results of Yale’s DEI curriculum assessment, saying it represented “best practices” in the industry. However, he acknowledged that realistically, not everyone will be receptive to DEI training.

Dr. Hsu said that holding medical staff accountable is the only way to truly incorporate DEI into everyday practice.

“Collectively, we need to be holding ourselves to different standards or holding ourselves to some standard,” Dr. Hsu said. “Maybe we need to be setting goals to the degree to which we diversify our training programs and our faculty, and there needs to be consequences to not doing so.”

No funding for the study was reported.

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