Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

Among adults who drink alcohol at relatively high amounts, regular weekly physical activity may reduce the mortality risk posed by alcohol-related cancers, concludes a new observational study involving 50,000-plus British adults.

Being physically active – for example, by walking, house cleaning, or playing a sport – could be promoted as a risk-minimization measure for alcohol-related cancers, say the authors, led by Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of Physical Activity, Lifestyle, and Population Health, University of Sydney, Australia.

The researchers found a “strong direct association between alcohol consumption and mortality risk of [10] alcohol-related cancers.”

Specifically, when compared with never drinkers, there was a significantly higher risk of dying from such cancers among drinkers who consumed “hazardous” and “harmful” amounts of alcohol, and also for ex-drinkers.

Notably, occasional drinkers and drinkers within guidelines did not have statistically significantly higher risks for alcohol-related cancer mortality.

But the analysis also found that among the bigger drinkers, the risks were “substantially attenuated” in physically active participants who met at least the lower recommended limit of activity (>7.5 metabolic equivalent task [MET]–hours/week).

That’s not a taxing amount of activity because, for example, general household cleaning results in 3 METs/hour and walking slowly translates into 2 METs/hour. However, nearly a quarter of survey participants reported no physical activity.

The study was published online May 14 in the International Journal of Cancer.

The new results require confirmation because the findings “are limited in their statistical power,” with small numbers of cases in several categories, said Alpa Patel, PhD, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved in the study. For example, there were only 55 alcohol-related cancer deaths among the 1540 harmful drinkers.

Patel stressed that, “based on the collective evidence to date, it is best to both avoid alcohol consumption and engage in sufficient amounts of physical activity.” That amount is 150-300 minutes of moderate or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity per week for cancer prevention.

Her message about abstinence is in-line with new ACS guidelines issued last month, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The ACS’s guidance was criticized by many readers in the comments section, who repeatedly encouraged “moderation.”

However, the ACS also recommended moderation, saying, for those adults who do drink, intake should be no more than 1 drink/day for women or 2 drinks/day for men. 

Study author Dr. Stamatakis commented on the alcohol debate.

“Any advice for complete abstinence is bound to alienate many people,” he told Medscape Medical News in an email. “Alcohol drinking has been an integral part of many societies for thousands of years.”

Dr. Stamatakis, who is an occasional beer drinker, also said, “there is no healthy level of alcohol drinking.”

This was also the conclusion of a 2018 study published in the Lancet, which stated that there is “no safe limit,” as even one drink a day increases the risk of cancer. A few years earlier, the 2014 World Cancer Report found a dose-response relationship between alcohol consumption and certain cancers.

However, epidemiological findings are not necessarily “clinically relevant,” commented Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a 2018 interview with Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Ligibel explained that there are 50 years of studies linking alcohol and cancers. “With the huge amount of data we have, even small differences [in consumption] are statistically significant.”

Dr. Ligibel cited an often-repeated statistic: for the average woman, there is a 12% lifetime risk of breast cancer. “If a woman consumes a drink a day, which is considered a low-level intake, that risk may become about 13% – which is statistically significant,” Dr. Ligibel explained.

But that risk increase is not clinically relevant, she added.

Mean 10 years of follow-up

The new study is the first to examine physical activity, drinking, and the 10 cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption (oral cavity, throat, larynx, esophagus, liver, colorectal, stomach, breast, pancreas, and lung).

The authors used data from 10 British population-based health surveys from 1994-2008 and looked at adults aged 30 years and older. The mean follow-up period was 9.9 years.

Among 54,686 participants, there were 2039 alcohol-related site-specific cancer deaths.

Alcohol consumption categories were based on U.K. guidelines, with 1 unit equal to 8 grams (about 2 ounces) of pure alcohol. The categories were as follows: drinking within guidelines (<14 units/week for women, <21 units/week for men), hazardous level (14-35 units/week for women, 21-49 units/week for men), and harmful level (> 35 units/week for women, >49 units/week for men). The survey also queried participants about being ex-drinkers, occasional drinkers, and never drinkers.

Physical activity was assessed using self-reported accounts of the 4 weeks preceding the health survey and intensity of activity (light, moderate, or vigorous) was queried. Physical activity was categorized using the upper (15 MET-hours/week) and lower (the aforementioned <7 MET-hours/week) recommended limits.

The median age of participants was 51 years; 7.9% were never drinkers and 14.7% exceeded guideline amounts. For physical activity, 23% reported none. The median level of activity was 9 MET-hours/week.

The authors say that the “increased risks [among the harmful, hazardous, and ex-drinker categories] were eliminated” among the individuals who reported physical activity >7.5 MET-hours/week. That meant the hazard ratios for cancer mortality for each category were reduced to the point that they were no longer statistically significant.

For example, for all drinkers in the “hazardous” category, the risk of cancer-related mortality was significantly higher than for nondrinkers (with a hazard ratio of 1.39), but in the subgroup of these participants who were physically active at the lower recommended limit, the hazard ratio dropped to 1.21.

These “broad patterns of effect modification by physical activity persisted when the upper physical activity limit [15 MET-hours/week] was used,” write the authors.

The new study adds to the literature on cancer mortality and alcohol consumption. In another recent study, researchers looked at eight British cohorts and reported overall cancer mortality associated with alcohol consumption was eliminated among those meeting physical activity recommendations (Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:651-7). The new study added two more cohorts to this base of eight and only focused on cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption. The earlier study included deaths from all types of cancer.

The refinement of focus in the current study is important, say Dr. Stamatakis and colleagues.

“This specificity adds biological plausibility and permits a more immediate translation of our findings into policy and practice,” they write. 

Dr. Stamatakis practices what he advocates, but is not a teetotaler.

“I exercise (e.g., dynamic yoga, HIIT cardio workouts, run, cycle, lift weights) for 45-60 minutes a day and I walk 8,000-14,000 steps daily. That would categorize me perhaps in the top 3%-5% for my age/sex group. And I enjoy 1-2 cans of craft beer a couple of times a week,” he said in an email.

Dr. Stamatakis and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adults who drink alcohol at relatively high amounts, regular weekly physical activity may reduce the mortality risk posed by alcohol-related cancers, concludes a new observational study involving 50,000-plus British adults.

Being physically active – for example, by walking, house cleaning, or playing a sport – could be promoted as a risk-minimization measure for alcohol-related cancers, say the authors, led by Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of Physical Activity, Lifestyle, and Population Health, University of Sydney, Australia.

The researchers found a “strong direct association between alcohol consumption and mortality risk of [10] alcohol-related cancers.”

Specifically, when compared with never drinkers, there was a significantly higher risk of dying from such cancers among drinkers who consumed “hazardous” and “harmful” amounts of alcohol, and also for ex-drinkers.

Notably, occasional drinkers and drinkers within guidelines did not have statistically significantly higher risks for alcohol-related cancer mortality.

But the analysis also found that among the bigger drinkers, the risks were “substantially attenuated” in physically active participants who met at least the lower recommended limit of activity (>7.5 metabolic equivalent task [MET]–hours/week).

That’s not a taxing amount of activity because, for example, general household cleaning results in 3 METs/hour and walking slowly translates into 2 METs/hour. However, nearly a quarter of survey participants reported no physical activity.

The study was published online May 14 in the International Journal of Cancer.

The new results require confirmation because the findings “are limited in their statistical power,” with small numbers of cases in several categories, said Alpa Patel, PhD, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved in the study. For example, there were only 55 alcohol-related cancer deaths among the 1540 harmful drinkers.

Patel stressed that, “based on the collective evidence to date, it is best to both avoid alcohol consumption and engage in sufficient amounts of physical activity.” That amount is 150-300 minutes of moderate or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity per week for cancer prevention.

Her message about abstinence is in-line with new ACS guidelines issued last month, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The ACS’s guidance was criticized by many readers in the comments section, who repeatedly encouraged “moderation.”

However, the ACS also recommended moderation, saying, for those adults who do drink, intake should be no more than 1 drink/day for women or 2 drinks/day for men. 

Study author Dr. Stamatakis commented on the alcohol debate.

“Any advice for complete abstinence is bound to alienate many people,” he told Medscape Medical News in an email. “Alcohol drinking has been an integral part of many societies for thousands of years.”

Dr. Stamatakis, who is an occasional beer drinker, also said, “there is no healthy level of alcohol drinking.”

This was also the conclusion of a 2018 study published in the Lancet, which stated that there is “no safe limit,” as even one drink a day increases the risk of cancer. A few years earlier, the 2014 World Cancer Report found a dose-response relationship between alcohol consumption and certain cancers.

However, epidemiological findings are not necessarily “clinically relevant,” commented Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a 2018 interview with Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Ligibel explained that there are 50 years of studies linking alcohol and cancers. “With the huge amount of data we have, even small differences [in consumption] are statistically significant.”

Dr. Ligibel cited an often-repeated statistic: for the average woman, there is a 12% lifetime risk of breast cancer. “If a woman consumes a drink a day, which is considered a low-level intake, that risk may become about 13% – which is statistically significant,” Dr. Ligibel explained.

But that risk increase is not clinically relevant, she added.

Mean 10 years of follow-up

The new study is the first to examine physical activity, drinking, and the 10 cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption (oral cavity, throat, larynx, esophagus, liver, colorectal, stomach, breast, pancreas, and lung).

The authors used data from 10 British population-based health surveys from 1994-2008 and looked at adults aged 30 years and older. The mean follow-up period was 9.9 years.

Among 54,686 participants, there were 2039 alcohol-related site-specific cancer deaths.

Alcohol consumption categories were based on U.K. guidelines, with 1 unit equal to 8 grams (about 2 ounces) of pure alcohol. The categories were as follows: drinking within guidelines (<14 units/week for women, <21 units/week for men), hazardous level (14-35 units/week for women, 21-49 units/week for men), and harmful level (> 35 units/week for women, >49 units/week for men). The survey also queried participants about being ex-drinkers, occasional drinkers, and never drinkers.

Physical activity was assessed using self-reported accounts of the 4 weeks preceding the health survey and intensity of activity (light, moderate, or vigorous) was queried. Physical activity was categorized using the upper (15 MET-hours/week) and lower (the aforementioned <7 MET-hours/week) recommended limits.

The median age of participants was 51 years; 7.9% were never drinkers and 14.7% exceeded guideline amounts. For physical activity, 23% reported none. The median level of activity was 9 MET-hours/week.

The authors say that the “increased risks [among the harmful, hazardous, and ex-drinker categories] were eliminated” among the individuals who reported physical activity >7.5 MET-hours/week. That meant the hazard ratios for cancer mortality for each category were reduced to the point that they were no longer statistically significant.

For example, for all drinkers in the “hazardous” category, the risk of cancer-related mortality was significantly higher than for nondrinkers (with a hazard ratio of 1.39), but in the subgroup of these participants who were physically active at the lower recommended limit, the hazard ratio dropped to 1.21.

These “broad patterns of effect modification by physical activity persisted when the upper physical activity limit [15 MET-hours/week] was used,” write the authors.

The new study adds to the literature on cancer mortality and alcohol consumption. In another recent study, researchers looked at eight British cohorts and reported overall cancer mortality associated with alcohol consumption was eliminated among those meeting physical activity recommendations (Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:651-7). The new study added two more cohorts to this base of eight and only focused on cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption. The earlier study included deaths from all types of cancer.

The refinement of focus in the current study is important, say Dr. Stamatakis and colleagues.

“This specificity adds biological plausibility and permits a more immediate translation of our findings into policy and practice,” they write. 

Dr. Stamatakis practices what he advocates, but is not a teetotaler.

“I exercise (e.g., dynamic yoga, HIIT cardio workouts, run, cycle, lift weights) for 45-60 minutes a day and I walk 8,000-14,000 steps daily. That would categorize me perhaps in the top 3%-5% for my age/sex group. And I enjoy 1-2 cans of craft beer a couple of times a week,” he said in an email.

Dr. Stamatakis and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adults who drink alcohol at relatively high amounts, regular weekly physical activity may reduce the mortality risk posed by alcohol-related cancers, concludes a new observational study involving 50,000-plus British adults.

Being physically active – for example, by walking, house cleaning, or playing a sport – could be promoted as a risk-minimization measure for alcohol-related cancers, say the authors, led by Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of Physical Activity, Lifestyle, and Population Health, University of Sydney, Australia.

The researchers found a “strong direct association between alcohol consumption and mortality risk of [10] alcohol-related cancers.”

Specifically, when compared with never drinkers, there was a significantly higher risk of dying from such cancers among drinkers who consumed “hazardous” and “harmful” amounts of alcohol, and also for ex-drinkers.

Notably, occasional drinkers and drinkers within guidelines did not have statistically significantly higher risks for alcohol-related cancer mortality.

But the analysis also found that among the bigger drinkers, the risks were “substantially attenuated” in physically active participants who met at least the lower recommended limit of activity (>7.5 metabolic equivalent task [MET]–hours/week).

That’s not a taxing amount of activity because, for example, general household cleaning results in 3 METs/hour and walking slowly translates into 2 METs/hour. However, nearly a quarter of survey participants reported no physical activity.

The study was published online May 14 in the International Journal of Cancer.

The new results require confirmation because the findings “are limited in their statistical power,” with small numbers of cases in several categories, said Alpa Patel, PhD, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved in the study. For example, there were only 55 alcohol-related cancer deaths among the 1540 harmful drinkers.

Patel stressed that, “based on the collective evidence to date, it is best to both avoid alcohol consumption and engage in sufficient amounts of physical activity.” That amount is 150-300 minutes of moderate or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity per week for cancer prevention.

Her message about abstinence is in-line with new ACS guidelines issued last month, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The ACS’s guidance was criticized by many readers in the comments section, who repeatedly encouraged “moderation.”

However, the ACS also recommended moderation, saying, for those adults who do drink, intake should be no more than 1 drink/day for women or 2 drinks/day for men. 

Study author Dr. Stamatakis commented on the alcohol debate.

“Any advice for complete abstinence is bound to alienate many people,” he told Medscape Medical News in an email. “Alcohol drinking has been an integral part of many societies for thousands of years.”

Dr. Stamatakis, who is an occasional beer drinker, also said, “there is no healthy level of alcohol drinking.”

This was also the conclusion of a 2018 study published in the Lancet, which stated that there is “no safe limit,” as even one drink a day increases the risk of cancer. A few years earlier, the 2014 World Cancer Report found a dose-response relationship between alcohol consumption and certain cancers.

However, epidemiological findings are not necessarily “clinically relevant,” commented Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, in a 2018 interview with Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Ligibel explained that there are 50 years of studies linking alcohol and cancers. “With the huge amount of data we have, even small differences [in consumption] are statistically significant.”

Dr. Ligibel cited an often-repeated statistic: for the average woman, there is a 12% lifetime risk of breast cancer. “If a woman consumes a drink a day, which is considered a low-level intake, that risk may become about 13% – which is statistically significant,” Dr. Ligibel explained.

But that risk increase is not clinically relevant, she added.

Mean 10 years of follow-up

The new study is the first to examine physical activity, drinking, and the 10 cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption (oral cavity, throat, larynx, esophagus, liver, colorectal, stomach, breast, pancreas, and lung).

The authors used data from 10 British population-based health surveys from 1994-2008 and looked at adults aged 30 years and older. The mean follow-up period was 9.9 years.

Among 54,686 participants, there were 2039 alcohol-related site-specific cancer deaths.

Alcohol consumption categories were based on U.K. guidelines, with 1 unit equal to 8 grams (about 2 ounces) of pure alcohol. The categories were as follows: drinking within guidelines (<14 units/week for women, <21 units/week for men), hazardous level (14-35 units/week for women, 21-49 units/week for men), and harmful level (> 35 units/week for women, >49 units/week for men). The survey also queried participants about being ex-drinkers, occasional drinkers, and never drinkers.

Physical activity was assessed using self-reported accounts of the 4 weeks preceding the health survey and intensity of activity (light, moderate, or vigorous) was queried. Physical activity was categorized using the upper (15 MET-hours/week) and lower (the aforementioned <7 MET-hours/week) recommended limits.

The median age of participants was 51 years; 7.9% were never drinkers and 14.7% exceeded guideline amounts. For physical activity, 23% reported none. The median level of activity was 9 MET-hours/week.

The authors say that the “increased risks [among the harmful, hazardous, and ex-drinker categories] were eliminated” among the individuals who reported physical activity >7.5 MET-hours/week. That meant the hazard ratios for cancer mortality for each category were reduced to the point that they were no longer statistically significant.

For example, for all drinkers in the “hazardous” category, the risk of cancer-related mortality was significantly higher than for nondrinkers (with a hazard ratio of 1.39), but in the subgroup of these participants who were physically active at the lower recommended limit, the hazard ratio dropped to 1.21.

These “broad patterns of effect modification by physical activity persisted when the upper physical activity limit [15 MET-hours/week] was used,” write the authors.

The new study adds to the literature on cancer mortality and alcohol consumption. In another recent study, researchers looked at eight British cohorts and reported overall cancer mortality associated with alcohol consumption was eliminated among those meeting physical activity recommendations (Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:651-7). The new study added two more cohorts to this base of eight and only focused on cancers that have been linked to alcohol consumption. The earlier study included deaths from all types of cancer.

The refinement of focus in the current study is important, say Dr. Stamatakis and colleagues.

“This specificity adds biological plausibility and permits a more immediate translation of our findings into policy and practice,” they write. 

Dr. Stamatakis practices what he advocates, but is not a teetotaler.

“I exercise (e.g., dynamic yoga, HIIT cardio workouts, run, cycle, lift weights) for 45-60 minutes a day and I walk 8,000-14,000 steps daily. That would categorize me perhaps in the top 3%-5% for my age/sex group. And I enjoy 1-2 cans of craft beer a couple of times a week,” he said in an email.

Dr. Stamatakis and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced two new types of cancer that can be treated by the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.

The new indications expand the use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to include treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic tumor mutational burden–high (TMB-H) solid tumors as well as patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). The FDA announced the new indications just 8 days apart, on June 16 and June 24.

In addition, on June 29, the FDA approved a third new indication for pembrolizumab, this time as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer.



The new approvals add to a wide range of oncology indications for which pembrolizumab can be used.

Accelerated approval to treat solid tumors

The FDA granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab to treat children and adults with unresectable or metastatic TMB-H solid tumors that progressed after previous treatment or in instances where there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

The tumor mutational burden must be confirmed by an FDA-approved test. To that end, the FDA approved the FoundationOneCDx assay, which is designed to help physicians determine which patients meet the threshold for TMB-H malignancies (10 or more mutations per megabase).

The efficacy of pembrolizumab in TMB-H solid tumors was investigated in 10 cohorts from the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-158 trial. Participants received 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until their disease progressed or they experienced unacceptable toxicity.

Within this population, 102 patients had tumors that met the TMB-H definition. In this group, the overall response rate was 29%, including a 25% partial response rate and a 4% complete response rate.

The median duration of response was not reached, but 57% of participants experienced a response lasting 12 months or longer, and 50% had a response lasting 24 months or longer.

The most common adverse events associated with pembrolizumab in this trial were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. Pembrolizumab is associated with immune-mediated side effects, including pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, and skin adverse reactions, the FDA noted.

Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in pediatric patients with TMB-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.
 

New option for recurrent or metastatic cSCC

Physicians treating patients with cSCC that is not curable by surgery or radiation now have pembrolizumab to consider as another treatment option.

The cSCC approval is based on results of the multicenter, open-label KEYNOTE-629 trial. The dosage regimen was 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks until cancer progressed, unacceptable toxicity arose, or 24 months of treatment were completed.

The objective response rate was 34%, and the median duration of response was not reached.

Adverse events were similar to those occurring in patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent in other clinical trials, the FDA noted.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the Gardasil-9 (Merck) vaccine to include prevention of oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers caused by HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.

This new indication is approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval program and is based on the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing HPV-related anogenital disease. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory clinical trial, which is currently underway.

“At Merck, working to help prevent certain HPV-related cancers has been a priority for more than two decades,” Alain Luxembourg, MD, director, clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories, said in a statement. “Today’s approval for the prevention of HPV-related oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers represents an important step in Merck’s mission to help reduce the number of men and women affected by certain HPV-related cancers.”

This new indication doesn’t affect the current recommendations that are already in place. In 2018, a supplemental application for Gardasil 9 was approved to include women and men aged 27 through 45 years for preventing a variety of cancers including cervical, vulvar, vaginal, and anal cancer as well as genital warts. But cancers of the head and neck were not included.

The original Gardasil vaccine came on the market in 2006, with an indication to prevent certain cancers and diseases caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18. It is no longer distributed in the United States.

In 2014, the FDA approved Gardasil 9, which extends the vaccine coverage for the initial four HPV types as five additional types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58), and its initial indication was for use in both men and women between the ages of 9 through 26 years.
 

Head and neck cancers surpass cervical cancer

More than 2 decades ago, researchers first found a connection between HPV and a subset of head and neck cancers (Curr Opin Oncol. 1999;11(3):191-199). The cancers associated with HPV also appeared to have a different biology and disease pattern, as well as a better prognosis, compared with those that were unrelated. HPV is now responsible for the majority of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers diagnosed in the United States.

A study published last year found that oral HPV infections were occurring with significantly less frequency among sexually active female adolescents who had received the quadrivalent vaccine, as compared with those who were unvaccinated.

These findings provided evidence that HPV vaccination was associated with a reduced frequency of HPV infection in the oral cavity, suggesting that vaccination could decrease the future risk of HPV-associated head and neck cancers.

The omission of head and neck cancers from the initial list of indications for the vaccine is notable because, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), oropharyngeal cancers are now the most common malignancy caused by HPV, surpassing cervical cancer.
 

Who will benefit?

An estimated 14 million new HPV infections occur every year in the United States, according to the CDC, and about 80% of individuals who are sexually active have been exposed at some point during their lifetime. In most people, however, the virus will clear on its own without causing any illness or symptoms.

In a Medscape videoblog, Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, MACP, FRCP, helped clarify the adult population most likely to benefit from the vaccine. She pointed out that the HPV vaccine doesn’t treat HPV-related disease or help clear infections, and there are currently no clinical antibody tests or titers that can predict immunity.

“Many adults aged 27-45 have already been exposed to HPV early in life,” she said. Those in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship are not likely to get a new HPV infection. Those with multiple prior sex partners are more likely to have already been exposed to vaccine serotypes. For them, the vaccine will be less effective.”

Fryhofer added that individuals who are now at risk for exposure to a new HPV infection from a new sex partner are the ones most likely to benefit from HPV vaccination.
 

Confirmation needed

The FDA’s accelerated approval is contingent on confirmatory data, and Merck opened a clinical trial this past February to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men 20 to 45 years of age. The phase 3 multicenter randomized trial will have an estimated enrollment of 6000 men.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the Gardasil-9 (Merck) vaccine to include prevention of oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers caused by HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.

This new indication is approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval program and is based on the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing HPV-related anogenital disease. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory clinical trial, which is currently underway.

“At Merck, working to help prevent certain HPV-related cancers has been a priority for more than two decades,” Alain Luxembourg, MD, director, clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories, said in a statement. “Today’s approval for the prevention of HPV-related oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers represents an important step in Merck’s mission to help reduce the number of men and women affected by certain HPV-related cancers.”

This new indication doesn’t affect the current recommendations that are already in place. In 2018, a supplemental application for Gardasil 9 was approved to include women and men aged 27 through 45 years for preventing a variety of cancers including cervical, vulvar, vaginal, and anal cancer as well as genital warts. But cancers of the head and neck were not included.

The original Gardasil vaccine came on the market in 2006, with an indication to prevent certain cancers and diseases caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18. It is no longer distributed in the United States.

In 2014, the FDA approved Gardasil 9, which extends the vaccine coverage for the initial four HPV types as five additional types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58), and its initial indication was for use in both men and women between the ages of 9 through 26 years.
 

Head and neck cancers surpass cervical cancer

More than 2 decades ago, researchers first found a connection between HPV and a subset of head and neck cancers (Curr Opin Oncol. 1999;11(3):191-199). The cancers associated with HPV also appeared to have a different biology and disease pattern, as well as a better prognosis, compared with those that were unrelated. HPV is now responsible for the majority of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers diagnosed in the United States.

A study published last year found that oral HPV infections were occurring with significantly less frequency among sexually active female adolescents who had received the quadrivalent vaccine, as compared with those who were unvaccinated.

These findings provided evidence that HPV vaccination was associated with a reduced frequency of HPV infection in the oral cavity, suggesting that vaccination could decrease the future risk of HPV-associated head and neck cancers.

The omission of head and neck cancers from the initial list of indications for the vaccine is notable because, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), oropharyngeal cancers are now the most common malignancy caused by HPV, surpassing cervical cancer.
 

Who will benefit?

An estimated 14 million new HPV infections occur every year in the United States, according to the CDC, and about 80% of individuals who are sexually active have been exposed at some point during their lifetime. In most people, however, the virus will clear on its own without causing any illness or symptoms.

In a Medscape videoblog, Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, MACP, FRCP, helped clarify the adult population most likely to benefit from the vaccine. She pointed out that the HPV vaccine doesn’t treat HPV-related disease or help clear infections, and there are currently no clinical antibody tests or titers that can predict immunity.

“Many adults aged 27-45 have already been exposed to HPV early in life,” she said. Those in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship are not likely to get a new HPV infection. Those with multiple prior sex partners are more likely to have already been exposed to vaccine serotypes. For them, the vaccine will be less effective.”

Fryhofer added that individuals who are now at risk for exposure to a new HPV infection from a new sex partner are the ones most likely to benefit from HPV vaccination.
 

Confirmation needed

The FDA’s accelerated approval is contingent on confirmatory data, and Merck opened a clinical trial this past February to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men 20 to 45 years of age. The phase 3 multicenter randomized trial will have an estimated enrollment of 6000 men.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the Gardasil-9 (Merck) vaccine to include prevention of oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers caused by HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58.

This new indication is approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval program and is based on the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing HPV-related anogenital disease. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory clinical trial, which is currently underway.

“At Merck, working to help prevent certain HPV-related cancers has been a priority for more than two decades,” Alain Luxembourg, MD, director, clinical research, Merck Research Laboratories, said in a statement. “Today’s approval for the prevention of HPV-related oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers represents an important step in Merck’s mission to help reduce the number of men and women affected by certain HPV-related cancers.”

This new indication doesn’t affect the current recommendations that are already in place. In 2018, a supplemental application for Gardasil 9 was approved to include women and men aged 27 through 45 years for preventing a variety of cancers including cervical, vulvar, vaginal, and anal cancer as well as genital warts. But cancers of the head and neck were not included.

The original Gardasil vaccine came on the market in 2006, with an indication to prevent certain cancers and diseases caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18. It is no longer distributed in the United States.

In 2014, the FDA approved Gardasil 9, which extends the vaccine coverage for the initial four HPV types as five additional types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58), and its initial indication was for use in both men and women between the ages of 9 through 26 years.
 

Head and neck cancers surpass cervical cancer

More than 2 decades ago, researchers first found a connection between HPV and a subset of head and neck cancers (Curr Opin Oncol. 1999;11(3):191-199). The cancers associated with HPV also appeared to have a different biology and disease pattern, as well as a better prognosis, compared with those that were unrelated. HPV is now responsible for the majority of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers diagnosed in the United States.

A study published last year found that oral HPV infections were occurring with significantly less frequency among sexually active female adolescents who had received the quadrivalent vaccine, as compared with those who were unvaccinated.

These findings provided evidence that HPV vaccination was associated with a reduced frequency of HPV infection in the oral cavity, suggesting that vaccination could decrease the future risk of HPV-associated head and neck cancers.

The omission of head and neck cancers from the initial list of indications for the vaccine is notable because, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), oropharyngeal cancers are now the most common malignancy caused by HPV, surpassing cervical cancer.
 

Who will benefit?

An estimated 14 million new HPV infections occur every year in the United States, according to the CDC, and about 80% of individuals who are sexually active have been exposed at some point during their lifetime. In most people, however, the virus will clear on its own without causing any illness or symptoms.

In a Medscape videoblog, Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, MACP, FRCP, helped clarify the adult population most likely to benefit from the vaccine. She pointed out that the HPV vaccine doesn’t treat HPV-related disease or help clear infections, and there are currently no clinical antibody tests or titers that can predict immunity.

“Many adults aged 27-45 have already been exposed to HPV early in life,” she said. Those in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship are not likely to get a new HPV infection. Those with multiple prior sex partners are more likely to have already been exposed to vaccine serotypes. For them, the vaccine will be less effective.”

Fryhofer added that individuals who are now at risk for exposure to a new HPV infection from a new sex partner are the ones most likely to benefit from HPV vaccination.
 

Confirmation needed

The FDA’s accelerated approval is contingent on confirmatory data, and Merck opened a clinical trial this past February to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men 20 to 45 years of age. The phase 3 multicenter randomized trial will have an estimated enrollment of 6000 men.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.

These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.

The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.

Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.

“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.

Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”

He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”

Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.

Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.

Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
 

‘Contentious issue’

In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”

One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.

For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”

Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m² plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”

He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.

His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.

The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.

They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m² CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m² CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.

For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.

The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).

The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m^2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m².

The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).

As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.

The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).

Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).

On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.

There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.

The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.

The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.

Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.

Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.

Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.

These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.

The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.

Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.

“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.

Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”

He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”

Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.

Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.

Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
 

‘Contentious issue’

In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”

One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.

For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”

Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m² plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”

He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.

His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.

The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.

They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m² CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m² CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.

For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.

The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).

The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m^2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m².

The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).

As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.

The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).

Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).

On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.

There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.

The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.

The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.

Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.

Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.

Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, weekly cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CDDP+RT) has been shown to be not only less toxic than dosing once every three weeks but to also achieve better outcomes in patients with postoperative squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), say Japanese researchers.

These results, from the JCOG1008 trial, suggest the weekly schedule should become the new standard of care in these patients, potentially settling what has been a “contentious” issue.

The research was presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (abstract 6502), held virtually because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Lead author Naomi Kiyota, MD, PhD, medical oncology and hematology, Cancer Center, Kobe University Hospital, Japan, said the study involving more than 160 high-risk patients with SCCHN demonstrated comparable overall survival in the weekly and three-weekly CDDP+RT groups.

Moreover, it showed that the weekly schedule was associated with better relapse-free and local relapse-free survival, and, in line with previous studies, had a more favorable safety profile.

“This phase II/III study is the first to show that weekly CDDP+RT is noninferior to three-weekly CDDP+RT [and] is a new standard treatment option for these patients,” Dr. Kiyota said.

Study discussant Hisham M. Mehanna, MD, PhD, Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic, University of Birmingham, UK, described the study as a “significant achievement” that answers “an important question that we’ve been asking for a very long time.”

He said that, despite three-weekly CDDP+RT being the standard treatment in the postoperative setting for SCCHN, there have been “lingering concerns,” as 40% of patients don’t get all three CDDP cycles “and it is toxic.”

Weekly CDDP is, on the other hand, “widely used, although the evidence for it is not as strong,” and has a number of advantages, including that it can be delivered in the outpatient setting and it may be less toxic.

Dr. Mehanna said there was “a surprise” to the current study, in that it was terminated early because it crossed the boundary for non-inferiority because weekly CDDP has better survival than the three-weekly dose; notably, however, superiority was not achieved.

Dr. Mehanna also expressed some reservations over imbalances in the treatment groups that could have meant the three-weekly cohort had an unfavorable prognosis, and said questions remain over longer-term toxicity.
 

‘Contentious issue’

In a highlights session, Nabil F. Saba, MD, director of the head and neck oncology program at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, said the dosing of CDDP in these patients has been “a contentious issue.”

One issue has been whether scheduling of CDDP or the cumulative dose achieved is the key determinant of clinical outcome, and he suggested that the superior results seen in the current study can be attributed to the high cumulative dose the investigators achieved in their patients compared with previous investigations.

For Dr. Saba, the take-home message of the trial is that weekly cisplatin “is now, finally, an accepted standard of care in the postoperative high-risk setting, which is a major change at this ASCO meeting.”

Presenting the trial, Dr. Kiyota said, in a recent study (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec 8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9457) from the Tata Memorial Hospital, weekly CDDP at 30 mg/m² plus radiotherapy failed to achieve noninferiority to a three-weekly regimen, “albeit with fewer toxicities.”

He suggested that this could be because it was a single-center trial, two different treatment strategies were used, the majority of primary sites were in the oral cavity, and the dose was insufficient.

His team, on the other hand, undertook a randomized trial in which patients with postoperative high-risk SCCHN were recruited from 28 institutions.

The participants, who were aged 20-75 years and had ECOG performance status 0-1, all had pathological stage III/IV disease and a microscopically positive margin and/or extranodal extension.

They were randomly assigned to 100 mg/m² CDDP once every three weeks or weekly 40 mg/m² CDDP, plus radiotherapy at 66 Gy over 33 fractions.

For the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, 132 patients received three-weekly CDDP+RT and 129 had weekly CDDP+RT, while the per-protocol safety analysis included 129 and 122 patients, respectively.

The median age of the patients was 61-62 years, and 110 patients in both treatment groups were male. Although there was a similar distribution of primary sites and high-risk factors in the two groups, more patients in the weekly group had pathological stage T2 disease (40) than in the three-weekly group (26).

The dose targets were met in both treatment groups. In the three-weekly group, the cumulative dose of CDDP achieved was 280 mg/m^2, and, in the weekly group, it was 239 mg/m².

The second planned interim analysis showed that, over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-year overall survival was estimated at 71.6% in the weekly group versus 59.1% in the three-weekly group (hazard ratio, 0.69).

As this was below the one-sided P value for noninferiority, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended terminating the trial early.

The researchers also found that the 3-year relapse-free survival was higher with weekly CDDP+RT, at 64.5%, vs 53.0% with three-weekly dosing (HR, 0.71).

Local relapse-free survival was also better with weekly dosing, at a 3-year rate of 69.6% versus 59.5% for patients in the three-weekly group (HR, 0.73).

On a planned subgroup analysis, weekly CDDP+RT was nonsignificantly superior to the three-weekly schedule on almost every measure, whether looking at patient age, ECOG performance status, and primary site.

There were also differences in the occurrence of hematologic toxicities between the two groups, with fewer patients given the weekly schedule experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia than those on the three-weekly dosing. However, there were more cases of any grade thrombocytopenia for patients getting the weekly dosing.

The weekly CDDP+RT regimen demonstrated its lower toxicity when looking at acute nonhematologic adverse events, with fewer occurrences of any grade dysphagia, nausea, hyponatremia, renal impairment, and hearing impairment versus the three-weekly schedule.

The weekly dosing schedule was also associated with lower rates of grade 3/4 dysphagia, nausea, and infection.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Fund.

Dr. Kiyota reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan; Eisai, Merck Serono, MSD, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst). Other study authors report potential conflicts of interest. The full list can be found here.

Dr. Mehanna reports stock and other ownership interests in Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; honoraria from AstraZeneca; speakers bureau fess from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur; research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), MSD (Inst), Sanofi Pasteur (Inst), and Silence Therapeutics (Inst); and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Merck, MSD, and Sanofi Pasteur.

Dr. Saba reports honoraria from Aduro Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cue Biopharma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Kura, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; a consulting or advisory role with Biontech, Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exelixis; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bluprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for use in certain patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The checkpoint inhibitor is now approved to treat patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC who previously received fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Researchers tested nivolumab in this population in the ATTRACTION-3 trial (NCT02569242). The trial enrolled 419 patients.

The patients were randomized to receive nivolumab at 240 mg via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks (n = 210) or investigator’s choice of taxane chemotherapy (n = 209), which consisted of docetaxel (75 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks) or paclitaxel (100 mg/m² intravenously once a week for 6 weeks followed by 1 week off).

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival but not progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months in the nivolumab arm and 3.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.1).

The median overall survival was 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm and 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .0189). The overall survival benefit was observed regardless of tumor programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

Response rates were similar between the treatment arms, but responses were more durable with nivolumab. The overall responses rate was 19.3% in the nivolumab arm and 21.5% in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of response was 6.9 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

Serious adverse events were reported in 38% of patients in the nivolumab arm. Serious adverse events occurring in at least 2% of patients were pneumonia, esophageal fistula, interstitial lung disease, and pyrexia.

Adverse events prompted 13% of patients to discontinue nivolumab and 27% to delay nivolumab treatment.

Fatal adverse events in patients on nivolumab included interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.0%), septic shock (0.5%), esophageal fistula (0.5%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.5%), pulmonary embolism (0.5%), and sudden death (0.5%).

The recommended dose of nivolumab for ESCC is 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. For more details, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for use in certain patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The checkpoint inhibitor is now approved to treat patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC who previously received fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Researchers tested nivolumab in this population in the ATTRACTION-3 trial (NCT02569242). The trial enrolled 419 patients.

The patients were randomized to receive nivolumab at 240 mg via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks (n = 210) or investigator’s choice of taxane chemotherapy (n = 209), which consisted of docetaxel (75 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks) or paclitaxel (100 mg/m² intravenously once a week for 6 weeks followed by 1 week off).

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival but not progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months in the nivolumab arm and 3.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.1).

The median overall survival was 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm and 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .0189). The overall survival benefit was observed regardless of tumor programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

Response rates were similar between the treatment arms, but responses were more durable with nivolumab. The overall responses rate was 19.3% in the nivolumab arm and 21.5% in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of response was 6.9 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

Serious adverse events were reported in 38% of patients in the nivolumab arm. Serious adverse events occurring in at least 2% of patients were pneumonia, esophageal fistula, interstitial lung disease, and pyrexia.

Adverse events prompted 13% of patients to discontinue nivolumab and 27% to delay nivolumab treatment.

Fatal adverse events in patients on nivolumab included interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.0%), septic shock (0.5%), esophageal fistula (0.5%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.5%), pulmonary embolism (0.5%), and sudden death (0.5%).

The recommended dose of nivolumab for ESCC is 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. For more details, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for use in certain patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The checkpoint inhibitor is now approved to treat patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC who previously received fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Researchers tested nivolumab in this population in the ATTRACTION-3 trial (NCT02569242). The trial enrolled 419 patients.

The patients were randomized to receive nivolumab at 240 mg via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks (n = 210) or investigator’s choice of taxane chemotherapy (n = 209), which consisted of docetaxel (75 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks) or paclitaxel (100 mg/m² intravenously once a week for 6 weeks followed by 1 week off).

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival but not progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months in the nivolumab arm and 3.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.1).

The median overall survival was 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm and 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .0189). The overall survival benefit was observed regardless of tumor programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

Response rates were similar between the treatment arms, but responses were more durable with nivolumab. The overall responses rate was 19.3% in the nivolumab arm and 21.5% in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of response was 6.9 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

Serious adverse events were reported in 38% of patients in the nivolumab arm. Serious adverse events occurring in at least 2% of patients were pneumonia, esophageal fistula, interstitial lung disease, and pyrexia.

Adverse events prompted 13% of patients to discontinue nivolumab and 27% to delay nivolumab treatment.

Fatal adverse events in patients on nivolumab included interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.0%), septic shock (0.5%), esophageal fistula (0.5%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.5%), pulmonary embolism (0.5%), and sudden death (0.5%).

The recommended dose of nivolumab for ESCC is 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. For more details, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence that has occurred since the 1990s – considered an “epidemic of overdiagnosis,” has extended beyond high-income countries to less affluent settings, where unnecessary – and sometimes opportunistic – screening could continue to thrive.

“The impact of overdiagnosis on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer highlighted in our report is a warning sign for countries with growing economies, where diagnostic technologies are increasingly and routinely offered, usually in exchange for payment, despite evidence that the harms far outweigh benefits,” the authors say.

“Overdiagnosis could turn healthy people into patients, and expose them to unnecessary harms and lifelong treatments,” say Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues in their article published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

With their previous research showing high rates of overdiagnosis in high-income countries, for this new analysis, they sought to evaluate whether similar patterns were occurring in less affluent settings.

They examined data from population-based cancer registries in 26 countries on four continents, looking at all cases of thyroid cancer reported between 1998 and 2012 in men and women aged 15 to 84 years.
 

A global public health problem

The results showed that while the incidence of thyroid cancer steadily increased from 1998 to 2002 and from 2008 to 2012 in all high-income countries, similar trends were also seen in less affluent nations, particularly in Belarus, China, Colombia, and Lithuania.

The increases were consistently greater among middle-aged women aged 35-64 years in all countries.

To determine what proportion of the higher incidence was overdiagnosis, the authors turned to historic age-specific thyroid cancer incidence data prior to the introduction of ultrasound and then looked at the progressive departure from that pattern, likely the result of the increased detection by ultrasound of thyroid nodules in middle-aged adults.

The results showed the proportion of thyroid cancer cases in women estimated to be attributable to overdiagnosis between 2008 and 2012 was as much as 93% in South Korea, 91% in Belarus, 87% in China, 84% in Italy and Croatia, and 83% in Slovakia and France.

Proportions attributable to overdiagnosis were lower in Denmark (66%), Norway (65%), Ireland (63%), United Kingdom (58%), Japan (55%), and Thailand (44%).

Women were much more likely to be overdiagnosed than men, with an approximate ratio of 3:1 in all countries; however, mortality and prevalence of thyroid cancer in autopsies were similar between genders.

Although researchers only looked at data up until 2012, Dr. Li said that, even in that year, “the amplitude of the phenomenon” was “already large and is increasing rapidly over time.”

Figures for periods subsequent to those assessed in the study “are likely to be higher.”

And the overdiagnosis is particularly remarkable in the context of the true risk of thyroid cancer, senior author Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, told this news organization.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this. Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

“Currently, it is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women of all ages and is third in women under 50 years of age. And the rates are still rising fast.”

“Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer is still rapidly expanding in many high-income countries, and for the first time, we document and quantify the phenomenon also for several middle-income socioeconomically transitioning countries,” he observed. “In short, it is a global public health problem.”

Guidelines, physicians: No symptoms should mean no screening

With the implications of overdiagnosis ranging from physical, psychological in terms of the patient, and significant personal as well as societal costs, most international guidelines explicitly recommend against screening asymptomatic individuals and call for active surveillance of microcarcinomas that are detected.

The messaging appears to be making a difference.

As reported in research by American authors discussing the thyroid cancer epidemic from a 2017 perspective, the overdiagnosis situation in South Korea prompted a group of physicians there to make a high-profile public appeal in print and on television recommending against thyroid screening with ultrasound.

The result was a 35% reduction in the number of thyroidectomies performed in the subsequent year.

“This seems to be a striking example that the issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment resonates with patients, and that public awareness can lead to changes in behavior,” say the U.S. authors of that article.

Senior author Louise Davies, MD, of the VA Outcomes Group, in White River Junction, Vt., said in an interview that the new study sheds more light on this issue.

“Even though the data only go through 2012, I think they give a nice snapshot of what’s happening across the globe with thyroid cancer incidence in countries of different levels of development,” she said.

The findings underscore that “it’s important that people are educated about the limits of medical testing and that sometimes when we see abnormalities we are truly catching a cancer early, but sometimes we’re seeing things that have been there a long time and may not change or become a problem in the future,” Dr. Davies remarked.
 

Important to know what size of cancers are being detected

One particular concern about overdiagnosis in middle-income countries is that the common approach of active monitoring may be more difficult in these settings, Dr. Davies added.

“In order to manage overdiagnosis, the health care systems in those countries have to think about whether they have the infrastructure for active monitoring and whether the patients will show up for the monitoring – so that’s a challenge.”

Also, she noted that the new study does not detail the size of cancers detected.

“We don’t know much about the size of the cancers being detected and whether these are truly the small asymptomatic cancers that we are worried about being overdiagnosed.”

“Probably, at least some of what we’re seeing is appropriate detection of cancers that, before there was economic development, were in fact being missed and people were dying of,” she said.

“So while overdiagnosis can be occurring, some of this represents better detection of disease overall, and that’s a good thing actually.”

The authors and Dr. Davies have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence that has occurred since the 1990s – considered an “epidemic of overdiagnosis,” has extended beyond high-income countries to less affluent settings, where unnecessary – and sometimes opportunistic – screening could continue to thrive.

“The impact of overdiagnosis on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer highlighted in our report is a warning sign for countries with growing economies, where diagnostic technologies are increasingly and routinely offered, usually in exchange for payment, despite evidence that the harms far outweigh benefits,” the authors say.

“Overdiagnosis could turn healthy people into patients, and expose them to unnecessary harms and lifelong treatments,” say Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues in their article published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

With their previous research showing high rates of overdiagnosis in high-income countries, for this new analysis, they sought to evaluate whether similar patterns were occurring in less affluent settings.

They examined data from population-based cancer registries in 26 countries on four continents, looking at all cases of thyroid cancer reported between 1998 and 2012 in men and women aged 15 to 84 years.
 

A global public health problem

The results showed that while the incidence of thyroid cancer steadily increased from 1998 to 2002 and from 2008 to 2012 in all high-income countries, similar trends were also seen in less affluent nations, particularly in Belarus, China, Colombia, and Lithuania.

The increases were consistently greater among middle-aged women aged 35-64 years in all countries.

To determine what proportion of the higher incidence was overdiagnosis, the authors turned to historic age-specific thyroid cancer incidence data prior to the introduction of ultrasound and then looked at the progressive departure from that pattern, likely the result of the increased detection by ultrasound of thyroid nodules in middle-aged adults.

The results showed the proportion of thyroid cancer cases in women estimated to be attributable to overdiagnosis between 2008 and 2012 was as much as 93% in South Korea, 91% in Belarus, 87% in China, 84% in Italy and Croatia, and 83% in Slovakia and France.

Proportions attributable to overdiagnosis were lower in Denmark (66%), Norway (65%), Ireland (63%), United Kingdom (58%), Japan (55%), and Thailand (44%).

Women were much more likely to be overdiagnosed than men, with an approximate ratio of 3:1 in all countries; however, mortality and prevalence of thyroid cancer in autopsies were similar between genders.

Although researchers only looked at data up until 2012, Dr. Li said that, even in that year, “the amplitude of the phenomenon” was “already large and is increasing rapidly over time.”

Figures for periods subsequent to those assessed in the study “are likely to be higher.”

And the overdiagnosis is particularly remarkable in the context of the true risk of thyroid cancer, senior author Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, told this news organization.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this. Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

“Currently, it is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women of all ages and is third in women under 50 years of age. And the rates are still rising fast.”

“Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer is still rapidly expanding in many high-income countries, and for the first time, we document and quantify the phenomenon also for several middle-income socioeconomically transitioning countries,” he observed. “In short, it is a global public health problem.”

Guidelines, physicians: No symptoms should mean no screening

With the implications of overdiagnosis ranging from physical, psychological in terms of the patient, and significant personal as well as societal costs, most international guidelines explicitly recommend against screening asymptomatic individuals and call for active surveillance of microcarcinomas that are detected.

The messaging appears to be making a difference.

As reported in research by American authors discussing the thyroid cancer epidemic from a 2017 perspective, the overdiagnosis situation in South Korea prompted a group of physicians there to make a high-profile public appeal in print and on television recommending against thyroid screening with ultrasound.

The result was a 35% reduction in the number of thyroidectomies performed in the subsequent year.

“This seems to be a striking example that the issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment resonates with patients, and that public awareness can lead to changes in behavior,” say the U.S. authors of that article.

Senior author Louise Davies, MD, of the VA Outcomes Group, in White River Junction, Vt., said in an interview that the new study sheds more light on this issue.

“Even though the data only go through 2012, I think they give a nice snapshot of what’s happening across the globe with thyroid cancer incidence in countries of different levels of development,” she said.

The findings underscore that “it’s important that people are educated about the limits of medical testing and that sometimes when we see abnormalities we are truly catching a cancer early, but sometimes we’re seeing things that have been there a long time and may not change or become a problem in the future,” Dr. Davies remarked.
 

Important to know what size of cancers are being detected

One particular concern about overdiagnosis in middle-income countries is that the common approach of active monitoring may be more difficult in these settings, Dr. Davies added.

“In order to manage overdiagnosis, the health care systems in those countries have to think about whether they have the infrastructure for active monitoring and whether the patients will show up for the monitoring – so that’s a challenge.”

Also, she noted that the new study does not detail the size of cancers detected.

“We don’t know much about the size of the cancers being detected and whether these are truly the small asymptomatic cancers that we are worried about being overdiagnosed.”

“Probably, at least some of what we’re seeing is appropriate detection of cancers that, before there was economic development, were in fact being missed and people were dying of,” she said.

“So while overdiagnosis can be occurring, some of this represents better detection of disease overall, and that’s a good thing actually.”

The authors and Dr. Davies have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence that has occurred since the 1990s – considered an “epidemic of overdiagnosis,” has extended beyond high-income countries to less affluent settings, where unnecessary – and sometimes opportunistic – screening could continue to thrive.

“The impact of overdiagnosis on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer highlighted in our report is a warning sign for countries with growing economies, where diagnostic technologies are increasingly and routinely offered, usually in exchange for payment, despite evidence that the harms far outweigh benefits,” the authors say.

“Overdiagnosis could turn healthy people into patients, and expose them to unnecessary harms and lifelong treatments,” say Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues in their article published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

With their previous research showing high rates of overdiagnosis in high-income countries, for this new analysis, they sought to evaluate whether similar patterns were occurring in less affluent settings.

They examined data from population-based cancer registries in 26 countries on four continents, looking at all cases of thyroid cancer reported between 1998 and 2012 in men and women aged 15 to 84 years.
 

A global public health problem

The results showed that while the incidence of thyroid cancer steadily increased from 1998 to 2002 and from 2008 to 2012 in all high-income countries, similar trends were also seen in less affluent nations, particularly in Belarus, China, Colombia, and Lithuania.

The increases were consistently greater among middle-aged women aged 35-64 years in all countries.

To determine what proportion of the higher incidence was overdiagnosis, the authors turned to historic age-specific thyroid cancer incidence data prior to the introduction of ultrasound and then looked at the progressive departure from that pattern, likely the result of the increased detection by ultrasound of thyroid nodules in middle-aged adults.

The results showed the proportion of thyroid cancer cases in women estimated to be attributable to overdiagnosis between 2008 and 2012 was as much as 93% in South Korea, 91% in Belarus, 87% in China, 84% in Italy and Croatia, and 83% in Slovakia and France.

Proportions attributable to overdiagnosis were lower in Denmark (66%), Norway (65%), Ireland (63%), United Kingdom (58%), Japan (55%), and Thailand (44%).

Women were much more likely to be overdiagnosed than men, with an approximate ratio of 3:1 in all countries; however, mortality and prevalence of thyroid cancer in autopsies were similar between genders.

Although researchers only looked at data up until 2012, Dr. Li said that, even in that year, “the amplitude of the phenomenon” was “already large and is increasing rapidly over time.”

Figures for periods subsequent to those assessed in the study “are likely to be higher.”

And the overdiagnosis is particularly remarkable in the context of the true risk of thyroid cancer, senior author Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, told this news organization.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this. Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

“Currently, it is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women of all ages and is third in women under 50 years of age. And the rates are still rising fast.”

“Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer is still rapidly expanding in many high-income countries, and for the first time, we document and quantify the phenomenon also for several middle-income socioeconomically transitioning countries,” he observed. “In short, it is a global public health problem.”

Guidelines, physicians: No symptoms should mean no screening

With the implications of overdiagnosis ranging from physical, psychological in terms of the patient, and significant personal as well as societal costs, most international guidelines explicitly recommend against screening asymptomatic individuals and call for active surveillance of microcarcinomas that are detected.

The messaging appears to be making a difference.

As reported in research by American authors discussing the thyroid cancer epidemic from a 2017 perspective, the overdiagnosis situation in South Korea prompted a group of physicians there to make a high-profile public appeal in print and on television recommending against thyroid screening with ultrasound.

The result was a 35% reduction in the number of thyroidectomies performed in the subsequent year.

“This seems to be a striking example that the issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment resonates with patients, and that public awareness can lead to changes in behavior,” say the U.S. authors of that article.

Senior author Louise Davies, MD, of the VA Outcomes Group, in White River Junction, Vt., said in an interview that the new study sheds more light on this issue.

“Even though the data only go through 2012, I think they give a nice snapshot of what’s happening across the globe with thyroid cancer incidence in countries of different levels of development,” she said.

The findings underscore that “it’s important that people are educated about the limits of medical testing and that sometimes when we see abnormalities we are truly catching a cancer early, but sometimes we’re seeing things that have been there a long time and may not change or become a problem in the future,” Dr. Davies remarked.
 

Important to know what size of cancers are being detected

One particular concern about overdiagnosis in middle-income countries is that the common approach of active monitoring may be more difficult in these settings, Dr. Davies added.

“In order to manage overdiagnosis, the health care systems in those countries have to think about whether they have the infrastructure for active monitoring and whether the patients will show up for the monitoring – so that’s a challenge.”

Also, she noted that the new study does not detail the size of cancers detected.

“We don’t know much about the size of the cancers being detected and whether these are truly the small asymptomatic cancers that we are worried about being overdiagnosed.”

“Probably, at least some of what we’re seeing is appropriate detection of cancers that, before there was economic development, were in fact being missed and people were dying of,” she said.

“So while overdiagnosis can be occurring, some of this represents better detection of disease overall, and that’s a good thing actually.”

The authors and Dr. Davies have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lillie Shockney, RN, MAS, a two-time breast cancer survivor and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing in Baltimore, Maryland, mourns the many losses that her patients with advanced cancer now face in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the void of the usual support networks and treatment plans, she sees the resurgence of something that has recently been crowded out: hospice.

The pandemic has forced patients and their physicians to reassess the risk/benefit balance of continuing or embarking on yet another cancer treatment.

“It’s one of the pearls that we will get out of this nightmare,” said Ms. Shockney, who recently retired as administrative director of the cancer survivorship programs at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“Physicians have been taught to treat the disease – so as long as there’s a treatment they give another treatment,” she told Medscape Medical News during a Zoom call from her home. “But for some patients with advanced disease, those treatments were making them very sick, so they were trading longevity over quality of life.”

Of course, longevity has never been a guarantee with cancer treatment, and even less so now, with the risk of COVID-19.

“This is going to bring them to some hard discussions,” says Brenda Nevidjon, RN, MSN, chief executive officer at the Oncology Nursing Society.

“We’ve known for a long time that there are patients who are on third- and fourth-round treatment options that have very little evidence of prolonging life or quality of life,” she told Medscape Medical News. “Do we bring these people out of their home to a setting where there could be a fair number of COVID-positive patients? Do we expose them to that?”

Across the world, these dilemmas are pushing cancer specialists to initiate discussions of hospice sooner with patients who have advanced disease, and with more clarity than before.

One of the reasons such conversations have often been avoided is that the concept of hospice is generally misunderstood, said Ms. Shockney.

“Patients think ‘you’re giving up on me, you’ve abandoned me’, but hospice is all about preserving the remainder of their quality of life and letting them have time with family and time to fulfill those elements of experiencing a good and peaceful death,” she said.

Indeed, hospice is “a benefit meant for somebody with at least a 6-month horizon,” agrees Ms. Nevidjon. Yet the average length of hospice in the United States is just 5 days. “It’s at the very, very end, and yet for some of these patients the 6 months they could get in hospice might be a better quality of life than the 4 months on another whole plan of chemotherapy. I can’t imagine that on the backside of this pandemic we will not have learned and we won’t start to change practices around initiating more of these conversations.”
 

Silver lining of this pandemic?

It’s too early into the pandemic to have hard data on whether hospice uptake has increased, but “it’s encouraging to hear that hospice is being discussed and offered sooner as an alternative to that third- or fourth-round chemo,” said Lori Bishop, MHA, RN, vice president of palliative and advanced care at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

“I agree that improving informed-decision discussions and timely access to hospice is a silver lining of the pandemic,” she told Medscape Medical News.

But she points out that today’s hospice looks quite different than it did before the pandemic, with the immediate and very obvious difference being telehealth, which was not widely utilized previously.

In March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth options for hospice providers, something that Ms. Bishop and other hospice providers hope will remain in place after the pandemic passes.

“Telehealth visits are offered to replace some in-home visits both to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 and reduce the drain on personal protective equipment,” Bishop explained.

“In-patient hospice programs are also finding unique ways to provide support and connect patients to their loved ones: visitors are allowed but limited to one or two. Music and pet therapy are being provided through the window or virtually and devices such as iPads are being used to help patients connect with loved ones,” she said.

Telehealth links patients out of loneliness, but the one thing it cannot do is provide the comfort of touch – an important part of any hospice program.

“Hand-holding ... I miss that a lot,” says Ms. Shockney, her eyes filling with tears. “When you take somebody’s hand, you don’t even have to speak; that connection, and eye contact, is all you need to help that person emotionally heal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.