Metastatic Breast Cancer

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

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

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

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

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

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

Interruption of 4-6 cyclin D-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDK4/6i) was associated with a high rate of progression among women with metastatic breast cancer, particularly those with liver metastases. The treatment interruptions occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, out of concern that myelosuppression from the drugs might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, and that other side effects might be confused with symptoms of COVID-19 infection.

The finding comes from a multicenter study presented by Sophie Martin, PhD, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Dr. Martin is a researcher at ICANS Institut de cancérologie Strasbourg Europe. The patient population had a complete or partial response, or stable disease complete for at least 6 months.

Although CDK4/6i combined with endocrine therapy has led to significant improvements in outcomes among metastatic HR-positive, HER-2-negative patients, the treatment can lead to chronic toxicities that may affect quality of life.

In its 2020 guidance on management of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Society for Medical Oncology noted that cancer patients are at higher risk of severe symptoms and worse outcomes. However, it points out that there is no direct evidence that neutropenia caused CDK4/6i or poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymer inhibitors leads to an increase risk of COVID-19 infection.

The American Society for Clinical Oncology guidance for managing treatment of cancer patients in the context of COVID-19 also says there is little direct evidence to guide practice regarding therapies that may lead to immunosuppression. Therefore, the society recommends against changing or withholding those drugs. “The balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection is very uncertain,” the authors wrote.

There were 60 patients in the study, and the median age was 64 years. The average interruption period was 8 weeks. Twenty-two patients (37%) experienced radiological and/or clinical disease progression. Sixteen of the 22 (73%) restarted on CDK4/6I, while the remaining 4 patients initiated chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Two patients died during CDK4/6i treatment interruption. A univariate analysis found that the presence of liver metastases was associated with increased risk of progression during CDK4/6I withdrawal (odds ratio, 5.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-26.41).

There was also a trend toward greater likelihood of disease progression when the withdrawal period was 2 or more months (OR, 2.38), but the finding was not statistically significant. Although the study looked at treatment interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors noted that the findings likely apply to other reasons for interruption, such as analgesic radiotherapy or programmed surgery.

Although the study authors advise against stopping CDK4/6i inhibitors, another small study conducted at a single German center suggested that treatment interruption might be an option in patients with stable disease. The authors examined elective CDK4/6i discontinuation among 22 patients with advanced, hormone receptor–positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer who had stable disease for at least 6 months with treatment regimens of CDK4/6i plus aromatase inhibitors or fulvestrant. After discontinuation of CDK4/6i but maintenance of endocrine therapy, 13 patients had stable disease, 8 had a partial response, and 1 had a complete response. After withdrawal, 5 patients had a local relapse and 1 experienced systemic progression. The patients restabilized with chemotherapy or retreatment with CDK4/6i.

“Discontinuation of CDK4/6 inhibitors seems to be safe in selected patients with metastatic HR-positive HER-2-negative breast cancer and prolonged disease control,” the authors wrote, although they noted that the results need to be backed up with prospective clinical trials.

Both studies had small sample sizes and were retrospective in nature.

One author on the COVID-19 study has received consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daïchi, Seagen, and AstraZeneca. Authors of the German study have received honoraria from Iomedico, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Sanofi, and BMS.

Interruption of 4-6 cyclin D-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDK4/6i) was associated with a high rate of progression among women with metastatic breast cancer, particularly those with liver metastases. The treatment interruptions occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, out of concern that myelosuppression from the drugs might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, and that other side effects might be confused with symptoms of COVID-19 infection.

The finding comes from a multicenter study presented by Sophie Martin, PhD, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Dr. Martin is a researcher at ICANS Institut de cancérologie Strasbourg Europe. The patient population had a complete or partial response, or stable disease complete for at least 6 months.

Although CDK4/6i combined with endocrine therapy has led to significant improvements in outcomes among metastatic HR-positive, HER-2-negative patients, the treatment can lead to chronic toxicities that may affect quality of life.

In its 2020 guidance on management of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Society for Medical Oncology noted that cancer patients are at higher risk of severe symptoms and worse outcomes. However, it points out that there is no direct evidence that neutropenia caused CDK4/6i or poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymer inhibitors leads to an increase risk of COVID-19 infection.

The American Society for Clinical Oncology guidance for managing treatment of cancer patients in the context of COVID-19 also says there is little direct evidence to guide practice regarding therapies that may lead to immunosuppression. Therefore, the society recommends against changing or withholding those drugs. “The balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection is very uncertain,” the authors wrote.

There were 60 patients in the study, and the median age was 64 years. The average interruption period was 8 weeks. Twenty-two patients (37%) experienced radiological and/or clinical disease progression. Sixteen of the 22 (73%) restarted on CDK4/6I, while the remaining 4 patients initiated chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Two patients died during CDK4/6i treatment interruption. A univariate analysis found that the presence of liver metastases was associated with increased risk of progression during CDK4/6I withdrawal (odds ratio, 5.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-26.41).

There was also a trend toward greater likelihood of disease progression when the withdrawal period was 2 or more months (OR, 2.38), but the finding was not statistically significant. Although the study looked at treatment interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors noted that the findings likely apply to other reasons for interruption, such as analgesic radiotherapy or programmed surgery.

Although the study authors advise against stopping CDK4/6i inhibitors, another small study conducted at a single German center suggested that treatment interruption might be an option in patients with stable disease. The authors examined elective CDK4/6i discontinuation among 22 patients with advanced, hormone receptor–positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer who had stable disease for at least 6 months with treatment regimens of CDK4/6i plus aromatase inhibitors or fulvestrant. After discontinuation of CDK4/6i but maintenance of endocrine therapy, 13 patients had stable disease, 8 had a partial response, and 1 had a complete response. After withdrawal, 5 patients had a local relapse and 1 experienced systemic progression. The patients restabilized with chemotherapy or retreatment with CDK4/6i.

“Discontinuation of CDK4/6 inhibitors seems to be safe in selected patients with metastatic HR-positive HER-2-negative breast cancer and prolonged disease control,” the authors wrote, although they noted that the results need to be backed up with prospective clinical trials.

Both studies had small sample sizes and were retrospective in nature.

One author on the COVID-19 study has received consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daïchi, Seagen, and AstraZeneca. Authors of the German study have received honoraria from Iomedico, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Sanofi, and BMS.

Interruption of 4-6 cyclin D-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDK4/6i) was associated with a high rate of progression among women with metastatic breast cancer, particularly those with liver metastases. The treatment interruptions occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, out of concern that myelosuppression from the drugs might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, and that other side effects might be confused with symptoms of COVID-19 infection.

The finding comes from a multicenter study presented by Sophie Martin, PhD, at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Dr. Martin is a researcher at ICANS Institut de cancérologie Strasbourg Europe. The patient population had a complete or partial response, or stable disease complete for at least 6 months.

Although CDK4/6i combined with endocrine therapy has led to significant improvements in outcomes among metastatic HR-positive, HER-2-negative patients, the treatment can lead to chronic toxicities that may affect quality of life.

In its 2020 guidance on management of cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Society for Medical Oncology noted that cancer patients are at higher risk of severe symptoms and worse outcomes. However, it points out that there is no direct evidence that neutropenia caused CDK4/6i or poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymer inhibitors leads to an increase risk of COVID-19 infection.

The American Society for Clinical Oncology guidance for managing treatment of cancer patients in the context of COVID-19 also says there is little direct evidence to guide practice regarding therapies that may lead to immunosuppression. Therefore, the society recommends against changing or withholding those drugs. “The balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection is very uncertain,” the authors wrote.

There were 60 patients in the study, and the median age was 64 years. The average interruption period was 8 weeks. Twenty-two patients (37%) experienced radiological and/or clinical disease progression. Sixteen of the 22 (73%) restarted on CDK4/6I, while the remaining 4 patients initiated chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Two patients died during CDK4/6i treatment interruption. A univariate analysis found that the presence of liver metastases was associated with increased risk of progression during CDK4/6I withdrawal (odds ratio, 5.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-26.41).

There was also a trend toward greater likelihood of disease progression when the withdrawal period was 2 or more months (OR, 2.38), but the finding was not statistically significant. Although the study looked at treatment interruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors noted that the findings likely apply to other reasons for interruption, such as analgesic radiotherapy or programmed surgery.

Although the study authors advise against stopping CDK4/6i inhibitors, another small study conducted at a single German center suggested that treatment interruption might be an option in patients with stable disease. The authors examined elective CDK4/6i discontinuation among 22 patients with advanced, hormone receptor–positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer who had stable disease for at least 6 months with treatment regimens of CDK4/6i plus aromatase inhibitors or fulvestrant. After discontinuation of CDK4/6i but maintenance of endocrine therapy, 13 patients had stable disease, 8 had a partial response, and 1 had a complete response. After withdrawal, 5 patients had a local relapse and 1 experienced systemic progression. The patients restabilized with chemotherapy or retreatment with CDK4/6i.

“Discontinuation of CDK4/6 inhibitors seems to be safe in selected patients with metastatic HR-positive HER-2-negative breast cancer and prolonged disease control,” the authors wrote, although they noted that the results need to be backed up with prospective clinical trials.

Both studies had small sample sizes and were retrospective in nature.

One author on the COVID-19 study has received consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daïchi, Seagen, and AstraZeneca. Authors of the German study have received honoraria from Iomedico, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Sanofi, and BMS.

As compared with standard of care, an investigational oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) demonstrated a 30% lower risk of death or disease progression in women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Findings from the phase 3 EMERALD trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed that the effects of elacestrant (Menarini and Radius Health) were even more pronounced in women with ESR1 mutations. Women in the elacestrant arm had a 45% reduced risk of death or disease progression in comparison with those who received standard of care.

This new agent is the “first oral SERD to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second- and third-line settings,” said lead author Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at Mass General Cancer Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Clinically, elacestrant has the potential to become the new standard of care in the study population.”

Endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors remain the mainstay for the management of ER-positive/HER2 metastatic breast cancer. However, most patients will eventually develop resistance to these agents, often caused by the development of ESR1 mutations.

At the current time, fulvestrant is the only SERD available on the U.S. market, which means there is an urgent unmet need for new, effective SERDs in this setting, especially for patients harboring ESR1 mutations, Dr. Bardia explained.

In an early phase 1 trial, Dr. Bardia and his team evaluated elacestrant for safety and antitumor activity and found it had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated single-agent activity with confirmed partial responses in heavily pretreated patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

This trial provided the rationale for investigating elacestrant in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Bardia said.

The multicenter, randomized, controlled phase 3 EMERALD trial included 477 postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients had also progressed on prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Patients were randomized to elacestrant 400 mg orally daily (n = 239) or standard of care (investigator’s choice of fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor, n = 238). The cohorts were further stratified by ESR1 mutation status, prior fulvestrant exposure, and presence of visceral disease.

The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations and in the entire cohort. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, tolerability, and quality of life.

“This was a positive study as it met both primary endpoints,” said Dr. Bardia.

The team found a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death in the elacestrant arm for all patients (hazard ratio, 0.697; P = .0018) and a 45% (HR, 0.546; P =.0005) reduction in the risk of progression or death among those with ESR1 mutations.

At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 22.32% with elacestrant versus 9.42% for those receiving the standard of care. Among the ESR1 mutation group, those rates were slightly more pronounced: 26.76% with elacestrant versus 8.19% with standard of care.

Overall survival data were not yet mature but trended in favor of elacestrant in all patients (HR, 0.751; P = .0821) as well as those with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.592; P = .0325). The final overall survival analysis is expected next year, Dr. Bardia said.

Common treatment-related adverse events with elacestrant versus standard of care included mostly grade 1 or 2 nausea (25.3% vs. 8.7%), vomiting (11% vs. 2.6%), and fatigue (11% vs. 7.9%). The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 7.2% in the elacestrant arm versus 3.1% in the standard of care group and was mainly driven by nausea. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of elacestrant or standard of care were infrequent in both arms (6.3% and 4.4%, respectively). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

Dr. Bardia added that further studies are planned and assess the efficacy of elacestrant during earlier lines of treatment and in combination with other therapies, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Weighing in on the recent findings, Carlos Arteaga, MD, who was not involved in the research, said this represents an important study evaluating a therapeutic priority.

“The data suggest that [elacestrant] may be a new option, not only as monotherapy but in combination with other therapies,” Dr. Arteaga, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of SABCS, said in an interview.

Coral Omene, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and assistant professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, both in New Brunswick, also commented on the importance of the EMERALD results.

“I would think that this is practice changing,” said Dr. Omene, who was also not involved in the research. The new oral SERD “demonstrates a significant advantage in progression-free survival over either fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.”

An oral drug could also potentially save patients from painful injections that can occasionally result in injection-site abscesses from long-term administration, she explained. “It’s also more convenient to take oral pills at home. It saves on transportation and omits waiting in treatment rooms for administrations.”

Although the overall survival data are not yet mature and the rate of adverse events was higher with elacestrant, “progression-free survival is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival and is reasonable to consider a treatment regimen based on this while awaiting mature survival data,” Dr. Omene added. “The increase in nausea and vomiting seen in oral SERD arm is likely manageable, as there were no significant differences in discontinuation in both arms of treatment.”

The study was supported by Radius Health. Dr. Bardia has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Radius Health, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, and Foundation Medicine. He has conducted contracted research or received grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

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

As compared with standard of care, an investigational oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) demonstrated a 30% lower risk of death or disease progression in women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Findings from the phase 3 EMERALD trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed that the effects of elacestrant (Menarini and Radius Health) were even more pronounced in women with ESR1 mutations. Women in the elacestrant arm had a 45% reduced risk of death or disease progression in comparison with those who received standard of care.

This new agent is the “first oral SERD to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second- and third-line settings,” said lead author Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at Mass General Cancer Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Clinically, elacestrant has the potential to become the new standard of care in the study population.”

Endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors remain the mainstay for the management of ER-positive/HER2 metastatic breast cancer. However, most patients will eventually develop resistance to these agents, often caused by the development of ESR1 mutations.

At the current time, fulvestrant is the only SERD available on the U.S. market, which means there is an urgent unmet need for new, effective SERDs in this setting, especially for patients harboring ESR1 mutations, Dr. Bardia explained.

In an early phase 1 trial, Dr. Bardia and his team evaluated elacestrant for safety and antitumor activity and found it had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated single-agent activity with confirmed partial responses in heavily pretreated patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

This trial provided the rationale for investigating elacestrant in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Bardia said.

The multicenter, randomized, controlled phase 3 EMERALD trial included 477 postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients had also progressed on prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Patients were randomized to elacestrant 400 mg orally daily (n = 239) or standard of care (investigator’s choice of fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor, n = 238). The cohorts were further stratified by ESR1 mutation status, prior fulvestrant exposure, and presence of visceral disease.

The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations and in the entire cohort. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, tolerability, and quality of life.

“This was a positive study as it met both primary endpoints,” said Dr. Bardia.

The team found a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death in the elacestrant arm for all patients (hazard ratio, 0.697; P = .0018) and a 45% (HR, 0.546; P =.0005) reduction in the risk of progression or death among those with ESR1 mutations.

At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 22.32% with elacestrant versus 9.42% for those receiving the standard of care. Among the ESR1 mutation group, those rates were slightly more pronounced: 26.76% with elacestrant versus 8.19% with standard of care.

Overall survival data were not yet mature but trended in favor of elacestrant in all patients (HR, 0.751; P = .0821) as well as those with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.592; P = .0325). The final overall survival analysis is expected next year, Dr. Bardia said.

Common treatment-related adverse events with elacestrant versus standard of care included mostly grade 1 or 2 nausea (25.3% vs. 8.7%), vomiting (11% vs. 2.6%), and fatigue (11% vs. 7.9%). The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 7.2% in the elacestrant arm versus 3.1% in the standard of care group and was mainly driven by nausea. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of elacestrant or standard of care were infrequent in both arms (6.3% and 4.4%, respectively). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

Dr. Bardia added that further studies are planned and assess the efficacy of elacestrant during earlier lines of treatment and in combination with other therapies, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Weighing in on the recent findings, Carlos Arteaga, MD, who was not involved in the research, said this represents an important study evaluating a therapeutic priority.

“The data suggest that [elacestrant] may be a new option, not only as monotherapy but in combination with other therapies,” Dr. Arteaga, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of SABCS, said in an interview.

Coral Omene, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and assistant professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, both in New Brunswick, also commented on the importance of the EMERALD results.

“I would think that this is practice changing,” said Dr. Omene, who was also not involved in the research. The new oral SERD “demonstrates a significant advantage in progression-free survival over either fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.”

An oral drug could also potentially save patients from painful injections that can occasionally result in injection-site abscesses from long-term administration, she explained. “It’s also more convenient to take oral pills at home. It saves on transportation and omits waiting in treatment rooms for administrations.”

Although the overall survival data are not yet mature and the rate of adverse events was higher with elacestrant, “progression-free survival is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival and is reasonable to consider a treatment regimen based on this while awaiting mature survival data,” Dr. Omene added. “The increase in nausea and vomiting seen in oral SERD arm is likely manageable, as there were no significant differences in discontinuation in both arms of treatment.”

The study was supported by Radius Health. Dr. Bardia has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Radius Health, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, and Foundation Medicine. He has conducted contracted research or received grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

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

As compared with standard of care, an investigational oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) demonstrated a 30% lower risk of death or disease progression in women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Findings from the phase 3 EMERALD trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed that the effects of elacestrant (Menarini and Radius Health) were even more pronounced in women with ESR1 mutations. Women in the elacestrant arm had a 45% reduced risk of death or disease progression in comparison with those who received standard of care.

This new agent is the “first oral SERD to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second- and third-line settings,” said lead author Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, director of the breast cancer research program at Mass General Cancer Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “Clinically, elacestrant has the potential to become the new standard of care in the study population.”

Endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors remain the mainstay for the management of ER-positive/HER2 metastatic breast cancer. However, most patients will eventually develop resistance to these agents, often caused by the development of ESR1 mutations.

At the current time, fulvestrant is the only SERD available on the U.S. market, which means there is an urgent unmet need for new, effective SERDs in this setting, especially for patients harboring ESR1 mutations, Dr. Bardia explained.

In an early phase 1 trial, Dr. Bardia and his team evaluated elacestrant for safety and antitumor activity and found it had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated single-agent activity with confirmed partial responses in heavily pretreated patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

This trial provided the rationale for investigating elacestrant in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Bardia said.

The multicenter, randomized, controlled phase 3 EMERALD trial included 477 postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy and no more than one line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients had also progressed on prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Patients were randomized to elacestrant 400 mg orally daily (n = 239) or standard of care (investigator’s choice of fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor, n = 238). The cohorts were further stratified by ESR1 mutation status, prior fulvestrant exposure, and presence of visceral disease.

The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations and in the entire cohort. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, tolerability, and quality of life.

“This was a positive study as it met both primary endpoints,” said Dr. Bardia.

The team found a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death in the elacestrant arm for all patients (hazard ratio, 0.697; P = .0018) and a 45% (HR, 0.546; P =.0005) reduction in the risk of progression or death among those with ESR1 mutations.

At 12 months, the progression-free survival rate was 22.32% with elacestrant versus 9.42% for those receiving the standard of care. Among the ESR1 mutation group, those rates were slightly more pronounced: 26.76% with elacestrant versus 8.19% with standard of care.

Overall survival data were not yet mature but trended in favor of elacestrant in all patients (HR, 0.751; P = .0821) as well as those with ESR1 mutations (HR, 0.592; P = .0325). The final overall survival analysis is expected next year, Dr. Bardia said.

Common treatment-related adverse events with elacestrant versus standard of care included mostly grade 1 or 2 nausea (25.3% vs. 8.7%), vomiting (11% vs. 2.6%), and fatigue (11% vs. 7.9%). The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 7.2% in the elacestrant arm versus 3.1% in the standard of care group and was mainly driven by nausea. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of elacestrant or standard of care were infrequent in both arms (6.3% and 4.4%, respectively). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

Dr. Bardia added that further studies are planned and assess the efficacy of elacestrant during earlier lines of treatment and in combination with other therapies, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Weighing in on the recent findings, Carlos Arteaga, MD, who was not involved in the research, said this represents an important study evaluating a therapeutic priority.

“The data suggest that [elacestrant] may be a new option, not only as monotherapy but in combination with other therapies,” Dr. Arteaga, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of SABCS, said in an interview.

Coral Omene, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and assistant professor of medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, both in New Brunswick, also commented on the importance of the EMERALD results.

“I would think that this is practice changing,” said Dr. Omene, who was also not involved in the research. The new oral SERD “demonstrates a significant advantage in progression-free survival over either fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.”

An oral drug could also potentially save patients from painful injections that can occasionally result in injection-site abscesses from long-term administration, she explained. “It’s also more convenient to take oral pills at home. It saves on transportation and omits waiting in treatment rooms for administrations.”

Although the overall survival data are not yet mature and the rate of adverse events was higher with elacestrant, “progression-free survival is a surrogate endpoint widely used for overall survival and is reasonable to consider a treatment regimen based on this while awaiting mature survival data,” Dr. Omene added. “The increase in nausea and vomiting seen in oral SERD arm is likely manageable, as there were no significant differences in discontinuation in both arms of treatment.”

The study was supported by Radius Health. Dr. Bardia has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Radius Health, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech, Merck, Immunomedics/Gilead, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Phillips, Eli Lilly, and Foundation Medicine. He has conducted contracted research or received grants from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Radius Health, Immunomedics/Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Natera, and Eli Lilly.

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

Black women who undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) as part of their treatment for breast cancer are at much higher risk of developing lymphedema than comparably treated White women, according to a prospective cohort screening study.

“Axillary lymph node dissection remains the main risk factor for the development of lymphedema,” Andrea Barrio, MD, associate attending physician, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

“We observed a higher incidence of lymphedema in Black women treated with ALND and RT [radiotherapy] after adjustment for other variables,” Dr. Barrio added. “While the etiology for this increased incidence is largely unknown, future studies should address the biologic mechanisms behind racial disparities in lymphedema development.”

Dr. Barrio and colleagues included 276 patients in the analysis – 60% were White, 20% Black, 11% Asian, and 6% Hispanic. The remaining 3% did not report race or ethnicity. Patients’ median age at baseline was 48 years, and the median body mass index was 26.4 kg/m2. Slightly over-two thirds of participants had hormone receptor (HR)–positive/HER2-negative breast cancer.

All patients underwent unilateral ALND. About 70% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and the remainder had upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Ninety-five percent of patients received radiotherapy, and almost all underwent nodal radiotherapy as well.

The median number of lymph nodes removed was 18, and the median number of positive lymph nodes was two. Using a perometer, arm volume was measured at baseline, postoperatively, and every 6 months for a total of 2 years. Lymphedema was defined as a relative increase in arm volume of greater than or equal to 10% from baseline.

At 24 months, almost 25% of the group had lymphedema, but the incidence differed significantly by race and ethnicity. The highest incidence was observed among Black women, at 39.4%, compared to 27.7% of Hispanic women, 23.4% of Asian women, and 20.5% of White women in the study.

The incidence of lymphedema also varied significantly by treatment group. The incidence was twofold greater among women treated with NAC in comparison with those who underwent upfront surgery (30.9% vs. 11.1%), Dr. Barrio noted.

On multivariate analysis, Black race was the strongest predictor of lymphedema. Compared to White women, Black women had a 3.5-fold greater risk of lymphedema. Hispanic women also had a threefold increased risk compared to White women, but Dr. Barrio cautioned that there were only 16 Hispanic patients in the study.

Older age and increasing time from surgery were also both modestly associated with an increased risk of lymphedema. Among women who ultimately developed lymphedema, “severity did not vary across race or ethnicity with similar relative volume changes observed,” Dr. Barrio said.

Given that the study found that NAC was an independent predictor of lymphedema, should alternatives to NAC be favored?

Although oncologists provide NAC for a variety of reasons, women with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease – which represent the majority of patients in the current analysis – are most likely to have residual disease after NAC, Dr. Barrio noted. This suggests that oncologists need to start looking at surgical de-escalation trials in this group of patients to help them avoid ALND.

Asked whether oncologists still underestimate the impact that lymphedema has on patients’ quality of life, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine, UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, said the oncology community has come a long way.

“Any surgeon or medical oncologist will tell you that in the 1960s and 70s, women were having much higher rates of lymphedema than they are now, so this is something that we do recognize and we are a lot more careful about,” she told this news organization.

Surgical techniques are also better now, and the number of lymph nodes that are being removed is much reduced. Nevertheless, when physicians add ALND and radiation to the axilla, “rates of lymphedema go up,” Dr. Kaklamani acknowledged. “We need these women to have physical therapy before they develop lymphedema.”

Dr. Barrio agreed, adding that if oncologists could identify earlier thresholds for lymphedema, before patients develop arm swelling, “we may be able to intervene and see a reduction in its development.”

In the meantime, Dr. Barrio and colleagues are testing the protective value of offering immediate lymphatic reconstruction following ALND versus no reconstruction. In addition, they will be studying banked tissue from Black women to better understand any racial differences in inflammatory responses, the risk of fibrosis, and the reaction to radiotherapy.

“I think we see that inflammation is a key driver of lymphedema development, and so maybe Black women are predisposed to a different inflammatory reaction to treatment or perhaps have higher levels of inflammation at baseline,” Dr. Barrio speculated.

“I think it’s also important to stratify a woman’s risk for lymphedema, and once we can tailor that risk, we can start to identify which patients might benefit from preventative strategies,” she added.

Dr. Barrio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics and as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seattle Genetics. She has also received research funding from Eisai.

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

Black women who undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) as part of their treatment for breast cancer are at much higher risk of developing lymphedema than comparably treated White women, according to a prospective cohort screening study.

“Axillary lymph node dissection remains the main risk factor for the development of lymphedema,” Andrea Barrio, MD, associate attending physician, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

“We observed a higher incidence of lymphedema in Black women treated with ALND and RT [radiotherapy] after adjustment for other variables,” Dr. Barrio added. “While the etiology for this increased incidence is largely unknown, future studies should address the biologic mechanisms behind racial disparities in lymphedema development.”

Dr. Barrio and colleagues included 276 patients in the analysis – 60% were White, 20% Black, 11% Asian, and 6% Hispanic. The remaining 3% did not report race or ethnicity. Patients’ median age at baseline was 48 years, and the median body mass index was 26.4 kg/m2. Slightly over-two thirds of participants had hormone receptor (HR)–positive/HER2-negative breast cancer.

All patients underwent unilateral ALND. About 70% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and the remainder had upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Ninety-five percent of patients received radiotherapy, and almost all underwent nodal radiotherapy as well.

The median number of lymph nodes removed was 18, and the median number of positive lymph nodes was two. Using a perometer, arm volume was measured at baseline, postoperatively, and every 6 months for a total of 2 years. Lymphedema was defined as a relative increase in arm volume of greater than or equal to 10% from baseline.

At 24 months, almost 25% of the group had lymphedema, but the incidence differed significantly by race and ethnicity. The highest incidence was observed among Black women, at 39.4%, compared to 27.7% of Hispanic women, 23.4% of Asian women, and 20.5% of White women in the study.

The incidence of lymphedema also varied significantly by treatment group. The incidence was twofold greater among women treated with NAC in comparison with those who underwent upfront surgery (30.9% vs. 11.1%), Dr. Barrio noted.

On multivariate analysis, Black race was the strongest predictor of lymphedema. Compared to White women, Black women had a 3.5-fold greater risk of lymphedema. Hispanic women also had a threefold increased risk compared to White women, but Dr. Barrio cautioned that there were only 16 Hispanic patients in the study.

Older age and increasing time from surgery were also both modestly associated with an increased risk of lymphedema. Among women who ultimately developed lymphedema, “severity did not vary across race or ethnicity with similar relative volume changes observed,” Dr. Barrio said.

Given that the study found that NAC was an independent predictor of lymphedema, should alternatives to NAC be favored?

Although oncologists provide NAC for a variety of reasons, women with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease – which represent the majority of patients in the current analysis – are most likely to have residual disease after NAC, Dr. Barrio noted. This suggests that oncologists need to start looking at surgical de-escalation trials in this group of patients to help them avoid ALND.

Asked whether oncologists still underestimate the impact that lymphedema has on patients’ quality of life, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine, UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, said the oncology community has come a long way.

“Any surgeon or medical oncologist will tell you that in the 1960s and 70s, women were having much higher rates of lymphedema than they are now, so this is something that we do recognize and we are a lot more careful about,” she told this news organization.

Surgical techniques are also better now, and the number of lymph nodes that are being removed is much reduced. Nevertheless, when physicians add ALND and radiation to the axilla, “rates of lymphedema go up,” Dr. Kaklamani acknowledged. “We need these women to have physical therapy before they develop lymphedema.”

Dr. Barrio agreed, adding that if oncologists could identify earlier thresholds for lymphedema, before patients develop arm swelling, “we may be able to intervene and see a reduction in its development.”

In the meantime, Dr. Barrio and colleagues are testing the protective value of offering immediate lymphatic reconstruction following ALND versus no reconstruction. In addition, they will be studying banked tissue from Black women to better understand any racial differences in inflammatory responses, the risk of fibrosis, and the reaction to radiotherapy.

“I think we see that inflammation is a key driver of lymphedema development, and so maybe Black women are predisposed to a different inflammatory reaction to treatment or perhaps have higher levels of inflammation at baseline,” Dr. Barrio speculated.

“I think it’s also important to stratify a woman’s risk for lymphedema, and once we can tailor that risk, we can start to identify which patients might benefit from preventative strategies,” she added.

Dr. Barrio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics and as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seattle Genetics. She has also received research funding from Eisai.

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

Black women who undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) as part of their treatment for breast cancer are at much higher risk of developing lymphedema than comparably treated White women, according to a prospective cohort screening study.

“Axillary lymph node dissection remains the main risk factor for the development of lymphedema,” Andrea Barrio, MD, associate attending physician, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

“We observed a higher incidence of lymphedema in Black women treated with ALND and RT [radiotherapy] after adjustment for other variables,” Dr. Barrio added. “While the etiology for this increased incidence is largely unknown, future studies should address the biologic mechanisms behind racial disparities in lymphedema development.”

Dr. Barrio and colleagues included 276 patients in the analysis – 60% were White, 20% Black, 11% Asian, and 6% Hispanic. The remaining 3% did not report race or ethnicity. Patients’ median age at baseline was 48 years, and the median body mass index was 26.4 kg/m2. Slightly over-two thirds of participants had hormone receptor (HR)–positive/HER2-negative breast cancer.

All patients underwent unilateral ALND. About 70% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and the remainder had upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Ninety-five percent of patients received radiotherapy, and almost all underwent nodal radiotherapy as well.

The median number of lymph nodes removed was 18, and the median number of positive lymph nodes was two. Using a perometer, arm volume was measured at baseline, postoperatively, and every 6 months for a total of 2 years. Lymphedema was defined as a relative increase in arm volume of greater than or equal to 10% from baseline.

At 24 months, almost 25% of the group had lymphedema, but the incidence differed significantly by race and ethnicity. The highest incidence was observed among Black women, at 39.4%, compared to 27.7% of Hispanic women, 23.4% of Asian women, and 20.5% of White women in the study.

The incidence of lymphedema also varied significantly by treatment group. The incidence was twofold greater among women treated with NAC in comparison with those who underwent upfront surgery (30.9% vs. 11.1%), Dr. Barrio noted.

On multivariate analysis, Black race was the strongest predictor of lymphedema. Compared to White women, Black women had a 3.5-fold greater risk of lymphedema. Hispanic women also had a threefold increased risk compared to White women, but Dr. Barrio cautioned that there were only 16 Hispanic patients in the study.

Older age and increasing time from surgery were also both modestly associated with an increased risk of lymphedema. Among women who ultimately developed lymphedema, “severity did not vary across race or ethnicity with similar relative volume changes observed,” Dr. Barrio said.

Given that the study found that NAC was an independent predictor of lymphedema, should alternatives to NAC be favored?

Although oncologists provide NAC for a variety of reasons, women with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease – which represent the majority of patients in the current analysis – are most likely to have residual disease after NAC, Dr. Barrio noted. This suggests that oncologists need to start looking at surgical de-escalation trials in this group of patients to help them avoid ALND.

Asked whether oncologists still underestimate the impact that lymphedema has on patients’ quality of life, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine, UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, said the oncology community has come a long way.

“Any surgeon or medical oncologist will tell you that in the 1960s and 70s, women were having much higher rates of lymphedema than they are now, so this is something that we do recognize and we are a lot more careful about,” she told this news organization.

Surgical techniques are also better now, and the number of lymph nodes that are being removed is much reduced. Nevertheless, when physicians add ALND and radiation to the axilla, “rates of lymphedema go up,” Dr. Kaklamani acknowledged. “We need these women to have physical therapy before they develop lymphedema.”

Dr. Barrio agreed, adding that if oncologists could identify earlier thresholds for lymphedema, before patients develop arm swelling, “we may be able to intervene and see a reduction in its development.”

In the meantime, Dr. Barrio and colleagues are testing the protective value of offering immediate lymphatic reconstruction following ALND versus no reconstruction. In addition, they will be studying banked tissue from Black women to better understand any racial differences in inflammatory responses, the risk of fibrosis, and the reaction to radiotherapy.

“I think we see that inflammation is a key driver of lymphedema development, and so maybe Black women are predisposed to a different inflammatory reaction to treatment or perhaps have higher levels of inflammation at baseline,” Dr. Barrio speculated.

“I think it’s also important to stratify a woman’s risk for lymphedema, and once we can tailor that risk, we can start to identify which patients might benefit from preventative strategies,” she added.

Dr. Barrio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics and as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Seattle Genetics. She has also received research funding from Eisai.

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

The surgical resection rates of the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer has declined in recent years, possibly reflecting changes in practice following randomized, controlled trials that have not consistently shown a survival benefit.

Retrospective studies have suggested a possible benefit to resection, according to Sasha Douglas, MD, who presented the study (abstract PD7-06) at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “Intuitively, you would think that you would want to get the primary tumor out even if it’s metastasized, so that it couldn’t metastasize more,” said Dr. Douglas, who is a surgical resident at the University of California, San Diego.

However, clinical trials have yielded mixed results, and the picture is complicated by the various molecular subtypes of breast cancer, metastatic sites, and other factors. “Different studies, whether it’s retrospective, and a really large database that has lots of numbers of patients, can give you a different answer than a smaller prospective randomized, controlled study in a different cohort of patients. So, we just thought it would be really interesting to look at all the trends over time at Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals. Do they seem to be following what the latest literature is showing?” Dr. Douglas said in an interview.

The researchers used data from 87,331 cases from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and examined rates of primary surgery as well as palliative care in women with metastatic breast cancer who had responded well to systemic therapy.

Between 2004 and 2009, the frequency of primary tumor resection remained near 35% (with a peak of 37% in 2009), then began a steady descent to 18% by 2017. The researchers found similar trends in estrogen receptor–positive/progesterone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (ER/PR+HERer2–); HER2-positive; and triple-negative subtypes.

In 2004, 48% of patients received only systemic therapy, while 37% received some combination of surgery and radiation to the primary tumor. By 2019, 69% received only systemic therapy and 20% received locoregional therapy (P < .001). “It seems that surgeons and providers and medical oncologists are becoming more selective about who they’re going to offer surgery to, and I think that’s very appropriate,” said Dr. Douglas.

But another finding suggests room for improvement: Just 21% of patients received palliative care. “I think that everybody with a major systemic illness like this would benefit from palliative care, just on a supportive basis. The palliative care team can really help people with quality of life, but I think it still has that stigma, and I think that’s what we’ve seen from our study,” said Dr. Douglas.

“We’re just postulating, [but] a lot of that could be from the stigma of thinking that palliative care means giving up. It doesn’t necessarily mean that. It means you’re dealing with a difficult chronic illness, and [palliative care] can be very, very helpful for patients,” said Dr. Douglas.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, and palliative care might be underreported in the NCDB.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Douglas has no financial disclosures.

The surgical resection rates of the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer has declined in recent years, possibly reflecting changes in practice following randomized, controlled trials that have not consistently shown a survival benefit.

Retrospective studies have suggested a possible benefit to resection, according to Sasha Douglas, MD, who presented the study (abstract PD7-06) at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “Intuitively, you would think that you would want to get the primary tumor out even if it’s metastasized, so that it couldn’t metastasize more,” said Dr. Douglas, who is a surgical resident at the University of California, San Diego.

However, clinical trials have yielded mixed results, and the picture is complicated by the various molecular subtypes of breast cancer, metastatic sites, and other factors. “Different studies, whether it’s retrospective, and a really large database that has lots of numbers of patients, can give you a different answer than a smaller prospective randomized, controlled study in a different cohort of patients. So, we just thought it would be really interesting to look at all the trends over time at Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals. Do they seem to be following what the latest literature is showing?” Dr. Douglas said in an interview.

The researchers used data from 87,331 cases from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and examined rates of primary surgery as well as palliative care in women with metastatic breast cancer who had responded well to systemic therapy.

Between 2004 and 2009, the frequency of primary tumor resection remained near 35% (with a peak of 37% in 2009), then began a steady descent to 18% by 2017. The researchers found similar trends in estrogen receptor–positive/progesterone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (ER/PR+HERer2–); HER2-positive; and triple-negative subtypes.

In 2004, 48% of patients received only systemic therapy, while 37% received some combination of surgery and radiation to the primary tumor. By 2019, 69% received only systemic therapy and 20% received locoregional therapy (P < .001). “It seems that surgeons and providers and medical oncologists are becoming more selective about who they’re going to offer surgery to, and I think that’s very appropriate,” said Dr. Douglas.

But another finding suggests room for improvement: Just 21% of patients received palliative care. “I think that everybody with a major systemic illness like this would benefit from palliative care, just on a supportive basis. The palliative care team can really help people with quality of life, but I think it still has that stigma, and I think that’s what we’ve seen from our study,” said Dr. Douglas.

“We’re just postulating, [but] a lot of that could be from the stigma of thinking that palliative care means giving up. It doesn’t necessarily mean that. It means you’re dealing with a difficult chronic illness, and [palliative care] can be very, very helpful for patients,” said Dr. Douglas.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, and palliative care might be underreported in the NCDB.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Douglas has no financial disclosures.

The surgical resection rates of the primary tumor in metastatic breast cancer has declined in recent years, possibly reflecting changes in practice following randomized, controlled trials that have not consistently shown a survival benefit.

Retrospective studies have suggested a possible benefit to resection, according to Sasha Douglas, MD, who presented the study (abstract PD7-06) at the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “Intuitively, you would think that you would want to get the primary tumor out even if it’s metastasized, so that it couldn’t metastasize more,” said Dr. Douglas, who is a surgical resident at the University of California, San Diego.

However, clinical trials have yielded mixed results, and the picture is complicated by the various molecular subtypes of breast cancer, metastatic sites, and other factors. “Different studies, whether it’s retrospective, and a really large database that has lots of numbers of patients, can give you a different answer than a smaller prospective randomized, controlled study in a different cohort of patients. So, we just thought it would be really interesting to look at all the trends over time at Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals. Do they seem to be following what the latest literature is showing?” Dr. Douglas said in an interview.

The researchers used data from 87,331 cases from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and examined rates of primary surgery as well as palliative care in women with metastatic breast cancer who had responded well to systemic therapy.

Between 2004 and 2009, the frequency of primary tumor resection remained near 35% (with a peak of 37% in 2009), then began a steady descent to 18% by 2017. The researchers found similar trends in estrogen receptor–positive/progesterone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (ER/PR+HERer2–); HER2-positive; and triple-negative subtypes.

In 2004, 48% of patients received only systemic therapy, while 37% received some combination of surgery and radiation to the primary tumor. By 2019, 69% received only systemic therapy and 20% received locoregional therapy (P < .001). “It seems that surgeons and providers and medical oncologists are becoming more selective about who they’re going to offer surgery to, and I think that’s very appropriate,” said Dr. Douglas.

But another finding suggests room for improvement: Just 21% of patients received palliative care. “I think that everybody with a major systemic illness like this would benefit from palliative care, just on a supportive basis. The palliative care team can really help people with quality of life, but I think it still has that stigma, and I think that’s what we’ve seen from our study,” said Dr. Douglas.

“We’re just postulating, [but] a lot of that could be from the stigma of thinking that palliative care means giving up. It doesn’t necessarily mean that. It means you’re dealing with a difficult chronic illness, and [palliative care] can be very, very helpful for patients,” said Dr. Douglas.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, and palliative care might be underreported in the NCDB.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Douglas has no financial disclosures.

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

For the first time, new data show that risk for breast cancer recurrence extends past 30 years.

The data come from a Danish study involving 20,315 women who were treated for early operable breast cancer between 1987 and 2004, all of whom were disease-free at 10 years.

Further follow-up showed that 2,595 women had a breast cancer recurrence more than 10 years after their primary diagnosis.

The cumulative incidence of recurrence was 8.5% at 15 years; 12.5% at 20 years; 15.2% at 25 years, and 16.6% at 32 years.

Recurrence risk was greatest early in the study period.

Women who had primary tumors larger than 20 mm, lymph node-positive disease, and estrogen receptor-positive tumors were at higher risk for late recurrence.

“Such patients may warrant extended surveillance, more aggressive treatment, or new therapy approaches,” said the investigators, led by Rikke Pedersen, MD, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Our observed high cumulative incidence of late breast cancer recurrence is a concern given the increasing prevalence of long-term survivors.” Among other things, a new model to better select women for prolonged surveillance is needed, they said.

The new findings were published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

This study confirms previous investigations, but it is the first to report that breast cancer can recur more than 30 years after diagnosis, note the authors of an accompanying editorial, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH, and Esmeralda Ramirez-Peña, PhD, MPH, both from the National Cancer Institute.

The caveat is that treatment has evolved considerably since the women in the study were diagnosed, so the prognostic value of the findings with current treatment regimens is uncertain, they note. Some studies haven’t found a recurrence benefit for aggressive upfront treatment, but those studies had shorter follow-ups.

Research into the issue is “increasingly important” to guide clinical management and counsel women who are living longer after their primary diagnosis, they comment.  
 

Further details from the study

Data for the study came from the Danish Breast Cancer Group clinical database and other national databases. The researchers focused on women who were disease-free at 10 years after their primary diagnosis, which was stage I or II disease. Median age was 55 years.

Cumulative incidence for breast cancer recurrence was highest for grade 1 tumors with four or more positive lymph nodes (37.9% 10-25 years after the primary diagnosis) and was lowest for patients with grade 3 disease and no involved lymph nodes (7.5%).

The finding of higher recurrence incidence with lower grade tumors goes against some previous reports, the researchers commented. It may be that some tumors considered lower risk decades ago, and treated accordingly, would be considered higher risk in more recent times.

The cumulative incidence of late recurrence was also higher in younger patients and those treated with breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, the team reported.

Adjusted hazard ratios followed the incidence trends, with higher hazards of recurrence for women diagnosed before age 40 as well as those who had breast-conserving surgery, four or more positive lymph nodes, and primary tumors 20 mm or more across.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society and Aarhus University. Lead author Dr. Pedersen reports no disclosures, but coauthors report ties to Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and other companies. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, new data show that risk for breast cancer recurrence extends past 30 years.

The data come from a Danish study involving 20,315 women who were treated for early operable breast cancer between 1987 and 2004, all of whom were disease-free at 10 years.

Further follow-up showed that 2,595 women had a breast cancer recurrence more than 10 years after their primary diagnosis.

The cumulative incidence of recurrence was 8.5% at 15 years; 12.5% at 20 years; 15.2% at 25 years, and 16.6% at 32 years.

Recurrence risk was greatest early in the study period.

Women who had primary tumors larger than 20 mm, lymph node-positive disease, and estrogen receptor-positive tumors were at higher risk for late recurrence.

“Such patients may warrant extended surveillance, more aggressive treatment, or new therapy approaches,” said the investigators, led by Rikke Pedersen, MD, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Our observed high cumulative incidence of late breast cancer recurrence is a concern given the increasing prevalence of long-term survivors.” Among other things, a new model to better select women for prolonged surveillance is needed, they said.

The new findings were published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

This study confirms previous investigations, but it is the first to report that breast cancer can recur more than 30 years after diagnosis, note the authors of an accompanying editorial, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH, and Esmeralda Ramirez-Peña, PhD, MPH, both from the National Cancer Institute.

The caveat is that treatment has evolved considerably since the women in the study were diagnosed, so the prognostic value of the findings with current treatment regimens is uncertain, they note. Some studies haven’t found a recurrence benefit for aggressive upfront treatment, but those studies had shorter follow-ups.

Research into the issue is “increasingly important” to guide clinical management and counsel women who are living longer after their primary diagnosis, they comment.  
 

Further details from the study

Data for the study came from the Danish Breast Cancer Group clinical database and other national databases. The researchers focused on women who were disease-free at 10 years after their primary diagnosis, which was stage I or II disease. Median age was 55 years.

Cumulative incidence for breast cancer recurrence was highest for grade 1 tumors with four or more positive lymph nodes (37.9% 10-25 years after the primary diagnosis) and was lowest for patients with grade 3 disease and no involved lymph nodes (7.5%).

The finding of higher recurrence incidence with lower grade tumors goes against some previous reports, the researchers commented. It may be that some tumors considered lower risk decades ago, and treated accordingly, would be considered higher risk in more recent times.

The cumulative incidence of late recurrence was also higher in younger patients and those treated with breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, the team reported.

Adjusted hazard ratios followed the incidence trends, with higher hazards of recurrence for women diagnosed before age 40 as well as those who had breast-conserving surgery, four or more positive lymph nodes, and primary tumors 20 mm or more across.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society and Aarhus University. Lead author Dr. Pedersen reports no disclosures, but coauthors report ties to Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and other companies. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, new data show that risk for breast cancer recurrence extends past 30 years.

The data come from a Danish study involving 20,315 women who were treated for early operable breast cancer between 1987 and 2004, all of whom were disease-free at 10 years.

Further follow-up showed that 2,595 women had a breast cancer recurrence more than 10 years after their primary diagnosis.

The cumulative incidence of recurrence was 8.5% at 15 years; 12.5% at 20 years; 15.2% at 25 years, and 16.6% at 32 years.

Recurrence risk was greatest early in the study period.

Women who had primary tumors larger than 20 mm, lymph node-positive disease, and estrogen receptor-positive tumors were at higher risk for late recurrence.

“Such patients may warrant extended surveillance, more aggressive treatment, or new therapy approaches,” said the investigators, led by Rikke Pedersen, MD, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Our observed high cumulative incidence of late breast cancer recurrence is a concern given the increasing prevalence of long-term survivors.” Among other things, a new model to better select women for prolonged surveillance is needed, they said.

The new findings were published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

This study confirms previous investigations, but it is the first to report that breast cancer can recur more than 30 years after diagnosis, note the authors of an accompanying editorial, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH, and Esmeralda Ramirez-Peña, PhD, MPH, both from the National Cancer Institute.

The caveat is that treatment has evolved considerably since the women in the study were diagnosed, so the prognostic value of the findings with current treatment regimens is uncertain, they note. Some studies haven’t found a recurrence benefit for aggressive upfront treatment, but those studies had shorter follow-ups.

Research into the issue is “increasingly important” to guide clinical management and counsel women who are living longer after their primary diagnosis, they comment.  
 

Further details from the study

Data for the study came from the Danish Breast Cancer Group clinical database and other national databases. The researchers focused on women who were disease-free at 10 years after their primary diagnosis, which was stage I or II disease. Median age was 55 years.

Cumulative incidence for breast cancer recurrence was highest for grade 1 tumors with four or more positive lymph nodes (37.9% 10-25 years after the primary diagnosis) and was lowest for patients with grade 3 disease and no involved lymph nodes (7.5%).

The finding of higher recurrence incidence with lower grade tumors goes against some previous reports, the researchers commented. It may be that some tumors considered lower risk decades ago, and treated accordingly, would be considered higher risk in more recent times.

The cumulative incidence of late recurrence was also higher in younger patients and those treated with breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, the team reported.

Adjusted hazard ratios followed the incidence trends, with higher hazards of recurrence for women diagnosed before age 40 as well as those who had breast-conserving surgery, four or more positive lymph nodes, and primary tumors 20 mm or more across.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society and Aarhus University. Lead author Dr. Pedersen reports no disclosures, but coauthors report ties to Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and other companies. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey of U.S. patients with breast cancer found that 42% were using cannabis, primarily to relieve side effects associated with treatment, such as pain, anxiety, nausea, and insomnia.

Most (75%) of the patients who reported using cannabis said it was extremely helpful or very helpful in alleviating symptoms.

The authors warn of potential safety concerns with cannabis, especially with the use of unregulated products.

In addition, the survey found that physicians were not highly regarded as a source of information about cannabis use. Only 39% of patients said that they discussed cannabis with their physicians; 28% reported feeling uncomfortable when broaching the topic. Only 4% indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of information about cannabis.

The survey involved 612 patients with breast cancer. The results were published online Oct. 12 in Cancer.

“Our study highlights an important opportunity for providers to initiate informed conversations about medical cannabis with their patients, as the evidence shows that many are using medical cannabis without our knowledge or guidance,” said lead author Marisa Weiss, MD, of Breastcancer.org and the Lankenau Medical Center, near Philadelphia. “Not knowing whether or not our cancer patients are using cannabis is a major blind spot in our ability to provide optimal care,” she said.

Cannabis in one form or another has been legalized in many states across America, and even in states where it hasn’t been legalized, people are using it.

“Even though many states have relaxed their laws on cannabis, it remains a Schedule I drug on the federal level and is essentially still considered illegal,” commented Donald I. Abrams, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and an integrative oncologist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine. “This is why many physicians are uncomfortable discussing it with patients,” he said.

“Cannabis use isn’t taught in medical school, and until that changes, I don’t know how physicians are going to be advisers for this,” said Dr. Abrams, who was approached by this news organization for comment.

This “is a really nice study in that it looks at a large group of breast cancer patients from the community ... It’s not from a single institution [such as this previous study] and so a more representative mix,” Dr. Abrams said.

However, he also commented that the article had a “scent of ‘reefer madness’” about it, given its emphasis on potential harms and safety concerns.

“It’s interesting how alcohol is considered mainstream but cannabis has been demonized,” he said. “Especially for women with breast cancer, it’s so clear that alcohol is related to the development of postmenopausal breast cancer. As a recreational intervention, cannabis in my mind appears to be much safer for women for relaxation.”

“The one thing I worry about are patients who take highly concentrated CBD [cannabidiol] oil, as it can block the metabolism of prescription drugs and allow them to build up in the blood,” Dr. Abrams said. “I advise people against using these products.”
 

Cannabis to relieve symptoms

Previous studies have noted widespread use of cannabis among patients with cancer. For example, a large study from Israel that included nearly 3,000 participants found that cannabis use improved a variety of cancer-related symptoms, including nausea and vomiting, sleep disorders, pain, anxiety, and depression. Among those with cancer who survived to 6 months and who finished the study protocol, 60% achieved “treatment success.” Of note, at 6 months, 36% of patients had stopped taking opioids, and for 9.9%, the dose of opioids had decreased.

In the current study, dubbed the Coala-T-Cannabis study, the investigators approached U.S. members of the Breastcancer.org and Healthline.com communities who self-reported that they had been diagnosed with breast cancer within the past 5 years; 612 surveys were completed.

Half of all respondents said they had looked for information on medical cannabis, but most were unsatisfied with the information that they had received. Only 6% were extremely satisfied; 25% were very satisfied with the information.

Most patients (39%) did not discuss cannabis use with their physicians. Of those who did, 28% reported feeling uncomfortable discussing the topic. Only 4% of survey respondents indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of cannabis information.

Regarding which source of information was most helpful, 22% said websites, 18% said family members or friends, 12% said staffers and pharmacists in dispensaries, and 7% said other patients with breast cancer.

Forty-two percent of the survey respondents said they used cannabis for medical purposes and for relief of symptoms, which included pain (78%), insomnia (70%), anxiety (57%), stress (51%), and nausea/vomiting (46%).

In addition, 49% believed that medical cannabis could be used to treat the cancer itself.

A fair number were also using cannabis for recreational purposes. Of those who used cannabis, only 23% reported that they used it for medical purposes only.

Participants used cannabis in a variety of forms. The most popular form of consumption was as edibles (70%), followed by liquids/tinctures (65%), smoking (51%), topicals (46%), and vape pens (45%). Participants reported using an average of 3.7 different products.
 

Safety concerns?

The authors caution about the use of cannabis while receiving anticancer therapies because such use “raises important efficacy and safety concerns.”

“Many chemotherapy agents as well as cannabinoids are metabolized in the liver’s p450 cytochrome system,” Dr. Weiss and colleagues note, and the mechanism by which cannabinoids interact with particular CYP450 isoenzymes “has the potential to alter the metabolism of other medications and lead to adverse side effects.”

They also question the safety of some of the cannabis products that are being used. Participants reported receiving cannabis from a variety of sources, which included state-regulated dispensaries, “dealers,” and family/friends.

Three-quarters of respondents believed that cannabis was better than “chemicals” and that the benefits outweighed the risks. But many of the products used are unregulated, the authors point out.

“Providers should communicate clearly about the health and safety concerns associated with certain cannabis products and methods of delivery,” they conclude. “Without these measures, patients may make these decisions without qualified medical guidance, obtain poor-quality cannabis products, and consume them through potentially hazardous delivery methods during various types of cancer therapies.”

The study was supported by research grants from Ananda Health/Ecofibre and the Dr. Philip Reeves Legacy Fund. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article. Dr. Abrams owns stock in Cannformatics and Lumen; he has received honorarium from Clever Leaves and Maui Grown Therapies and speaker honorarium from GW Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new survey of U.S. patients with breast cancer found that 42% were using cannabis, primarily to relieve side effects associated with treatment, such as pain, anxiety, nausea, and insomnia.

Most (75%) of the patients who reported using cannabis said it was extremely helpful or very helpful in alleviating symptoms.

The authors warn of potential safety concerns with cannabis, especially with the use of unregulated products.

In addition, the survey found that physicians were not highly regarded as a source of information about cannabis use. Only 39% of patients said that they discussed cannabis with their physicians; 28% reported feeling uncomfortable when broaching the topic. Only 4% indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of information about cannabis.

The survey involved 612 patients with breast cancer. The results were published online Oct. 12 in Cancer.

“Our study highlights an important opportunity for providers to initiate informed conversations about medical cannabis with their patients, as the evidence shows that many are using medical cannabis without our knowledge or guidance,” said lead author Marisa Weiss, MD, of Breastcancer.org and the Lankenau Medical Center, near Philadelphia. “Not knowing whether or not our cancer patients are using cannabis is a major blind spot in our ability to provide optimal care,” she said.

Cannabis in one form or another has been legalized in many states across America, and even in states where it hasn’t been legalized, people are using it.

“Even though many states have relaxed their laws on cannabis, it remains a Schedule I drug on the federal level and is essentially still considered illegal,” commented Donald I. Abrams, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and an integrative oncologist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine. “This is why many physicians are uncomfortable discussing it with patients,” he said.

“Cannabis use isn’t taught in medical school, and until that changes, I don’t know how physicians are going to be advisers for this,” said Dr. Abrams, who was approached by this news organization for comment.

This “is a really nice study in that it looks at a large group of breast cancer patients from the community ... It’s not from a single institution [such as this previous study] and so a more representative mix,” Dr. Abrams said.

However, he also commented that the article had a “scent of ‘reefer madness’” about it, given its emphasis on potential harms and safety concerns.

“It’s interesting how alcohol is considered mainstream but cannabis has been demonized,” he said. “Especially for women with breast cancer, it’s so clear that alcohol is related to the development of postmenopausal breast cancer. As a recreational intervention, cannabis in my mind appears to be much safer for women for relaxation.”

“The one thing I worry about are patients who take highly concentrated CBD [cannabidiol] oil, as it can block the metabolism of prescription drugs and allow them to build up in the blood,” Dr. Abrams said. “I advise people against using these products.”
 

Cannabis to relieve symptoms

Previous studies have noted widespread use of cannabis among patients with cancer. For example, a large study from Israel that included nearly 3,000 participants found that cannabis use improved a variety of cancer-related symptoms, including nausea and vomiting, sleep disorders, pain, anxiety, and depression. Among those with cancer who survived to 6 months and who finished the study protocol, 60% achieved “treatment success.” Of note, at 6 months, 36% of patients had stopped taking opioids, and for 9.9%, the dose of opioids had decreased.

In the current study, dubbed the Coala-T-Cannabis study, the investigators approached U.S. members of the Breastcancer.org and Healthline.com communities who self-reported that they had been diagnosed with breast cancer within the past 5 years; 612 surveys were completed.

Half of all respondents said they had looked for information on medical cannabis, but most were unsatisfied with the information that they had received. Only 6% were extremely satisfied; 25% were very satisfied with the information.

Most patients (39%) did not discuss cannabis use with their physicians. Of those who did, 28% reported feeling uncomfortable discussing the topic. Only 4% of survey respondents indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of cannabis information.

Regarding which source of information was most helpful, 22% said websites, 18% said family members or friends, 12% said staffers and pharmacists in dispensaries, and 7% said other patients with breast cancer.

Forty-two percent of the survey respondents said they used cannabis for medical purposes and for relief of symptoms, which included pain (78%), insomnia (70%), anxiety (57%), stress (51%), and nausea/vomiting (46%).

In addition, 49% believed that medical cannabis could be used to treat the cancer itself.

A fair number were also using cannabis for recreational purposes. Of those who used cannabis, only 23% reported that they used it for medical purposes only.

Participants used cannabis in a variety of forms. The most popular form of consumption was as edibles (70%), followed by liquids/tinctures (65%), smoking (51%), topicals (46%), and vape pens (45%). Participants reported using an average of 3.7 different products.
 

Safety concerns?

The authors caution about the use of cannabis while receiving anticancer therapies because such use “raises important efficacy and safety concerns.”

“Many chemotherapy agents as well as cannabinoids are metabolized in the liver’s p450 cytochrome system,” Dr. Weiss and colleagues note, and the mechanism by which cannabinoids interact with particular CYP450 isoenzymes “has the potential to alter the metabolism of other medications and lead to adverse side effects.”

They also question the safety of some of the cannabis products that are being used. Participants reported receiving cannabis from a variety of sources, which included state-regulated dispensaries, “dealers,” and family/friends.

Three-quarters of respondents believed that cannabis was better than “chemicals” and that the benefits outweighed the risks. But many of the products used are unregulated, the authors point out.

“Providers should communicate clearly about the health and safety concerns associated with certain cannabis products and methods of delivery,” they conclude. “Without these measures, patients may make these decisions without qualified medical guidance, obtain poor-quality cannabis products, and consume them through potentially hazardous delivery methods during various types of cancer therapies.”

The study was supported by research grants from Ananda Health/Ecofibre and the Dr. Philip Reeves Legacy Fund. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article. Dr. Abrams owns stock in Cannformatics and Lumen; he has received honorarium from Clever Leaves and Maui Grown Therapies and speaker honorarium from GW Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new survey of U.S. patients with breast cancer found that 42% were using cannabis, primarily to relieve side effects associated with treatment, such as pain, anxiety, nausea, and insomnia.

Most (75%) of the patients who reported using cannabis said it was extremely helpful or very helpful in alleviating symptoms.

The authors warn of potential safety concerns with cannabis, especially with the use of unregulated products.

In addition, the survey found that physicians were not highly regarded as a source of information about cannabis use. Only 39% of patients said that they discussed cannabis with their physicians; 28% reported feeling uncomfortable when broaching the topic. Only 4% indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of information about cannabis.

The survey involved 612 patients with breast cancer. The results were published online Oct. 12 in Cancer.

“Our study highlights an important opportunity for providers to initiate informed conversations about medical cannabis with their patients, as the evidence shows that many are using medical cannabis without our knowledge or guidance,” said lead author Marisa Weiss, MD, of Breastcancer.org and the Lankenau Medical Center, near Philadelphia. “Not knowing whether or not our cancer patients are using cannabis is a major blind spot in our ability to provide optimal care,” she said.

Cannabis in one form or another has been legalized in many states across America, and even in states where it hasn’t been legalized, people are using it.

“Even though many states have relaxed their laws on cannabis, it remains a Schedule I drug on the federal level and is essentially still considered illegal,” commented Donald I. Abrams, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and an integrative oncologist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine. “This is why many physicians are uncomfortable discussing it with patients,” he said.

“Cannabis use isn’t taught in medical school, and until that changes, I don’t know how physicians are going to be advisers for this,” said Dr. Abrams, who was approached by this news organization for comment.

This “is a really nice study in that it looks at a large group of breast cancer patients from the community ... It’s not from a single institution [such as this previous study] and so a more representative mix,” Dr. Abrams said.

However, he also commented that the article had a “scent of ‘reefer madness’” about it, given its emphasis on potential harms and safety concerns.

“It’s interesting how alcohol is considered mainstream but cannabis has been demonized,” he said. “Especially for women with breast cancer, it’s so clear that alcohol is related to the development of postmenopausal breast cancer. As a recreational intervention, cannabis in my mind appears to be much safer for women for relaxation.”

“The one thing I worry about are patients who take highly concentrated CBD [cannabidiol] oil, as it can block the metabolism of prescription drugs and allow them to build up in the blood,” Dr. Abrams said. “I advise people against using these products.”
 

Cannabis to relieve symptoms

Previous studies have noted widespread use of cannabis among patients with cancer. For example, a large study from Israel that included nearly 3,000 participants found that cannabis use improved a variety of cancer-related symptoms, including nausea and vomiting, sleep disorders, pain, anxiety, and depression. Among those with cancer who survived to 6 months and who finished the study protocol, 60% achieved “treatment success.” Of note, at 6 months, 36% of patients had stopped taking opioids, and for 9.9%, the dose of opioids had decreased.

In the current study, dubbed the Coala-T-Cannabis study, the investigators approached U.S. members of the Breastcancer.org and Healthline.com communities who self-reported that they had been diagnosed with breast cancer within the past 5 years; 612 surveys were completed.

Half of all respondents said they had looked for information on medical cannabis, but most were unsatisfied with the information that they had received. Only 6% were extremely satisfied; 25% were very satisfied with the information.

Most patients (39%) did not discuss cannabis use with their physicians. Of those who did, 28% reported feeling uncomfortable discussing the topic. Only 4% of survey respondents indicated that physicians were the most helpful source of cannabis information.

Regarding which source of information was most helpful, 22% said websites, 18% said family members or friends, 12% said staffers and pharmacists in dispensaries, and 7% said other patients with breast cancer.

Forty-two percent of the survey respondents said they used cannabis for medical purposes and for relief of symptoms, which included pain (78%), insomnia (70%), anxiety (57%), stress (51%), and nausea/vomiting (46%).

In addition, 49% believed that medical cannabis could be used to treat the cancer itself.

A fair number were also using cannabis for recreational purposes. Of those who used cannabis, only 23% reported that they used it for medical purposes only.

Participants used cannabis in a variety of forms. The most popular form of consumption was as edibles (70%), followed by liquids/tinctures (65%), smoking (51%), topicals (46%), and vape pens (45%). Participants reported using an average of 3.7 different products.
 

Safety concerns?

The authors caution about the use of cannabis while receiving anticancer therapies because such use “raises important efficacy and safety concerns.”

“Many chemotherapy agents as well as cannabinoids are metabolized in the liver’s p450 cytochrome system,” Dr. Weiss and colleagues note, and the mechanism by which cannabinoids interact with particular CYP450 isoenzymes “has the potential to alter the metabolism of other medications and lead to adverse side effects.”

They also question the safety of some of the cannabis products that are being used. Participants reported receiving cannabis from a variety of sources, which included state-regulated dispensaries, “dealers,” and family/friends.

Three-quarters of respondents believed that cannabis was better than “chemicals” and that the benefits outweighed the risks. But many of the products used are unregulated, the authors point out.

“Providers should communicate clearly about the health and safety concerns associated with certain cannabis products and methods of delivery,” they conclude. “Without these measures, patients may make these decisions without qualified medical guidance, obtain poor-quality cannabis products, and consume them through potentially hazardous delivery methods during various types of cancer therapies.”

The study was supported by research grants from Ananda Health/Ecofibre and the Dr. Philip Reeves Legacy Fund. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article. Dr. Abrams owns stock in Cannformatics and Lumen; he has received honorarium from Clever Leaves and Maui Grown Therapies and speaker honorarium from GW Pharmaceuticals.

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

Breast cancer treatment often results in shoulder and arm problems, such as chronic pain, restricted shoulder movement, or lymphedema in the armpit area, limiting quality of life and delaying recovery. However, according to a U.K. study published by The BMJ on Nov. 10, women who exercised shortly after having nonreconstructive breast cancer surgery experienced less pain and regained better shoulder and arm mobility at 1 year than those who did not exercise.

“Hospitals should consider training physiotherapists in the PROSPER program to offer this structured, prescribed exercise program to women undergoing axillary clearance surgery and those having radiotherapy to the axilla,” said lead author Julie Bruce, PhD, a specialist in surgical epidemiology with the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Up to one-third of women experience adverse effects to their lymphatic and musculoskeletal systems after breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy targeting the axilla. A study of 2,411 women in Denmark found that pain remained for up to 7 years after breast cancer treatment. U.K. guidelines for the management of breast cancer recommend referral to physical therapy if such problems develop, but the best timing and intensity along with the safety of postoperative exercise remain uncertain. A review of the literature in 2019 found a lack of adequate evidence to support the use of postoperative exercise after breast cancer surgery. Moreover, concerns with such exercise have been reported, such as increased risks of postoperative wound complications and lymphedema.

“The study was conducted to address uncertainty whether early postoperative exercise after women at high risk of shoulder and arm problems after nonreconstructive surgery was safe, clinically, and cost-effective. Previous studies were small, and no large high-quality randomized controlled trials had been undertaken with this patient population in the U.K.,” Dr. Bruce said.

In UK PROSPER, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of an exercise program compared with usual care for 392 women (mean age 58) undergoing breast cancer surgery at 17 National Health Service (NHS) cancer centers. The women were randomly assigned to usual care with structured exercise or usual care alone. Structured exercise, introduced 7-10 days postoperatively, consisted of a physical therapy–led exercise program comprising stretching, strengthening, and physical activity, along with behavioral change techniques to support exercise adherence. Two further appointments were offered 1 and 3 months later. Outcomes included upper limb function, as measured by the Disability of Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, complications, health related quality of life, and cost effectiveness.

At 12 months, women in the exercise group showed improved upper limb function compared with those who received usual care (mean DASH 16.3 for exercise, 23.7 for usual care; adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.17-12.44; P = .001). Compared with the usual care group, women in the exercise group reported lower pain intensity, fewer arm disability symptoms, and better health related quality of life.

“We found that arm function, measured using the DASH scale, improved over time and found surprisingly, these differences between treatment groups persisted at 12 months,” Dr. Bruce said. “There was no increased risk of neuropathic pain or lymphedema, so we concluded that the structured exercise program introduced from the seventh postoperative day was safe. Strengthening exercises were introduced from 1 month postoperatively.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as participants and physical therapists knew which treatment they were receiving, they stressed that the study included a larger sample size than that of previous trials, along with a long follow-up period.

“We know that some women develop late lymphedema. Our findings are based on follow-up at 12 months. We hope to undertake longer-term follow up of our patient sample in the future,” Dr. Bruce said.

The authors declared support from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme.

Breast cancer treatment often results in shoulder and arm problems, such as chronic pain, restricted shoulder movement, or lymphedema in the armpit area, limiting quality of life and delaying recovery. However, according to a U.K. study published by The BMJ on Nov. 10, women who exercised shortly after having nonreconstructive breast cancer surgery experienced less pain and regained better shoulder and arm mobility at 1 year than those who did not exercise.

“Hospitals should consider training physiotherapists in the PROSPER program to offer this structured, prescribed exercise program to women undergoing axillary clearance surgery and those having radiotherapy to the axilla,” said lead author Julie Bruce, PhD, a specialist in surgical epidemiology with the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Up to one-third of women experience adverse effects to their lymphatic and musculoskeletal systems after breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy targeting the axilla. A study of 2,411 women in Denmark found that pain remained for up to 7 years after breast cancer treatment. U.K. guidelines for the management of breast cancer recommend referral to physical therapy if such problems develop, but the best timing and intensity along with the safety of postoperative exercise remain uncertain. A review of the literature in 2019 found a lack of adequate evidence to support the use of postoperative exercise after breast cancer surgery. Moreover, concerns with such exercise have been reported, such as increased risks of postoperative wound complications and lymphedema.

“The study was conducted to address uncertainty whether early postoperative exercise after women at high risk of shoulder and arm problems after nonreconstructive surgery was safe, clinically, and cost-effective. Previous studies were small, and no large high-quality randomized controlled trials had been undertaken with this patient population in the U.K.,” Dr. Bruce said.

In UK PROSPER, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of an exercise program compared with usual care for 392 women (mean age 58) undergoing breast cancer surgery at 17 National Health Service (NHS) cancer centers. The women were randomly assigned to usual care with structured exercise or usual care alone. Structured exercise, introduced 7-10 days postoperatively, consisted of a physical therapy–led exercise program comprising stretching, strengthening, and physical activity, along with behavioral change techniques to support exercise adherence. Two further appointments were offered 1 and 3 months later. Outcomes included upper limb function, as measured by the Disability of Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, complications, health related quality of life, and cost effectiveness.

At 12 months, women in the exercise group showed improved upper limb function compared with those who received usual care (mean DASH 16.3 for exercise, 23.7 for usual care; adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.17-12.44; P = .001). Compared with the usual care group, women in the exercise group reported lower pain intensity, fewer arm disability symptoms, and better health related quality of life.

“We found that arm function, measured using the DASH scale, improved over time and found surprisingly, these differences between treatment groups persisted at 12 months,” Dr. Bruce said. “There was no increased risk of neuropathic pain or lymphedema, so we concluded that the structured exercise program introduced from the seventh postoperative day was safe. Strengthening exercises were introduced from 1 month postoperatively.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as participants and physical therapists knew which treatment they were receiving, they stressed that the study included a larger sample size than that of previous trials, along with a long follow-up period.

“We know that some women develop late lymphedema. Our findings are based on follow-up at 12 months. We hope to undertake longer-term follow up of our patient sample in the future,” Dr. Bruce said.

The authors declared support from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme.

Breast cancer treatment often results in shoulder and arm problems, such as chronic pain, restricted shoulder movement, or lymphedema in the armpit area, limiting quality of life and delaying recovery. However, according to a U.K. study published by The BMJ on Nov. 10, women who exercised shortly after having nonreconstructive breast cancer surgery experienced less pain and regained better shoulder and arm mobility at 1 year than those who did not exercise.

“Hospitals should consider training physiotherapists in the PROSPER program to offer this structured, prescribed exercise program to women undergoing axillary clearance surgery and those having radiotherapy to the axilla,” said lead author Julie Bruce, PhD, a specialist in surgical epidemiology with the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Up to one-third of women experience adverse effects to their lymphatic and musculoskeletal systems after breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy targeting the axilla. A study of 2,411 women in Denmark found that pain remained for up to 7 years after breast cancer treatment. U.K. guidelines for the management of breast cancer recommend referral to physical therapy if such problems develop, but the best timing and intensity along with the safety of postoperative exercise remain uncertain. A review of the literature in 2019 found a lack of adequate evidence to support the use of postoperative exercise after breast cancer surgery. Moreover, concerns with such exercise have been reported, such as increased risks of postoperative wound complications and lymphedema.

“The study was conducted to address uncertainty whether early postoperative exercise after women at high risk of shoulder and arm problems after nonreconstructive surgery was safe, clinically, and cost-effective. Previous studies were small, and no large high-quality randomized controlled trials had been undertaken with this patient population in the U.K.,” Dr. Bruce said.

In UK PROSPER, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of an exercise program compared with usual care for 392 women (mean age 58) undergoing breast cancer surgery at 17 National Health Service (NHS) cancer centers. The women were randomly assigned to usual care with structured exercise or usual care alone. Structured exercise, introduced 7-10 days postoperatively, consisted of a physical therapy–led exercise program comprising stretching, strengthening, and physical activity, along with behavioral change techniques to support exercise adherence. Two further appointments were offered 1 and 3 months later. Outcomes included upper limb function, as measured by the Disability of Arm, Hand, and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, complications, health related quality of life, and cost effectiveness.

At 12 months, women in the exercise group showed improved upper limb function compared with those who received usual care (mean DASH 16.3 for exercise, 23.7 for usual care; adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval, 3.17-12.44; P = .001). Compared with the usual care group, women in the exercise group reported lower pain intensity, fewer arm disability symptoms, and better health related quality of life.

“We found that arm function, measured using the DASH scale, improved over time and found surprisingly, these differences between treatment groups persisted at 12 months,” Dr. Bruce said. “There was no increased risk of neuropathic pain or lymphedema, so we concluded that the structured exercise program introduced from the seventh postoperative day was safe. Strengthening exercises were introduced from 1 month postoperatively.”

While the authors noted that the study was limited as participants and physical therapists knew which treatment they were receiving, they stressed that the study included a larger sample size than that of previous trials, along with a long follow-up period.

“We know that some women develop late lymphedema. Our findings are based on follow-up at 12 months. We hope to undertake longer-term follow up of our patient sample in the future,” Dr. Bruce said.

The authors declared support from the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Technology Assessment Programme.

System-level changes to the way cancer care is delivered can help eliminate survival disparities between Black and White patients.

When barriers to completing radiation therapy were identified and addressed in a cohort of patients with early-stage lung and breast cancer, 5-year survival rates improved for all patients and closed the racial disparity gap, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

The findings come from the ACCURE clinical trial. This is the first prospective study designed to erase gaps in cancer treatment completion and survival among Black and White patient populations, explained lead author Matthew A. Manning, MD, a radiation oncologist and chief of oncology at Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C.

“Thousands of studies have looked at racial disparities in health care, but until recently, very few studies have implemented interventions to eliminate those disparities,” he said.

“This study shows that the implementation of ‘systems-change’ can eliminate racial disparities in cancer survival while improving survival for all,” he added.

“These results add to a growing body of evidence that health care disparities in cancer outcomes are eliminated or minimized by providing supportive, timely, and guideline-directed care,” said Lannis Hall, MD, MPH, director of radiation oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, and associate professor of radiation oncology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was approached for comment

“This research supports that access to care and timely treatment completion is critical to eliminating health care disparities,” she told this news organization. The system-based intervention in this trial was designed to reduce treatment delays and provide a supportive matrix for patients confronting real-world difficulties like transportation issues, childcare complications, and work absence, she explained.
 

Eliminating racial disparities

Previous findings from the ACCURE trial showed that it eliminated Black-White disparities in treatment completion rates, which was the study’s primary endpoint (Cancer Med. 2019;8:1095-1102). “It also improved treatment for all patients,” said Dr. Manning. “The current study is a follow-up on the survival of eligible patients treated during the ACCURE enrollment as compared to historical data.”

ACCURE was a multi-institutional trial designed to test a community-created intervention to reduce racial disparities. The intervention involved multiple changes to the way patients were supported while receiving cancer treatment and had four components: 

• an electronic health record with automatic alerts to flag missed appointments or unmet milestones in expected care 
• a nurse navigator trained in race-specific barriers to help patients overcome obstacles to care when alerts are flagged
• a physician champion to engage health care teams with race-related feedback on treatment completion
• regular health equity education training sessions for staff

The cohort was comprised of 1,413 patients with lung and breast cancer (stage 0-II) who were diagnosed from 2013-2015, and survival was compared to historical cases – 2,016 patients who had been treated from 2007-2011.

The results showed a significant improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with breast and lung cancer over time, and the racial gap in survival was reduced. 

The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer increased from 91% for White patients and 89% in Black patients in historical cases, to 94% for both during the study period.  

For patients with lung cancer, the 5-year survival rate improved from 43% in White patients and 37% in Black patients to 56% and 54%, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery had 5-year survival rates of 78.5% for White and 70.1% for Black patients, whereas for those who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) the rates were 41.9% and 50% respectively.

“We’ve shown it’s possible to eliminate disparities in cancer treatment completion and that this change has the potential to close cancer survival gaps downstream,” said Dr. Manning. “But we think the application can be much broader.” 

The ACCURE study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Manning and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

System-level changes to the way cancer care is delivered can help eliminate survival disparities between Black and White patients.

When barriers to completing radiation therapy were identified and addressed in a cohort of patients with early-stage lung and breast cancer, 5-year survival rates improved for all patients and closed the racial disparity gap, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

The findings come from the ACCURE clinical trial. This is the first prospective study designed to erase gaps in cancer treatment completion and survival among Black and White patient populations, explained lead author Matthew A. Manning, MD, a radiation oncologist and chief of oncology at Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C.

“Thousands of studies have looked at racial disparities in health care, but until recently, very few studies have implemented interventions to eliminate those disparities,” he said.

“This study shows that the implementation of ‘systems-change’ can eliminate racial disparities in cancer survival while improving survival for all,” he added.

“These results add to a growing body of evidence that health care disparities in cancer outcomes are eliminated or minimized by providing supportive, timely, and guideline-directed care,” said Lannis Hall, MD, MPH, director of radiation oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, and associate professor of radiation oncology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was approached for comment

“This research supports that access to care and timely treatment completion is critical to eliminating health care disparities,” she told this news organization. The system-based intervention in this trial was designed to reduce treatment delays and provide a supportive matrix for patients confronting real-world difficulties like transportation issues, childcare complications, and work absence, she explained.
 

Eliminating racial disparities

Previous findings from the ACCURE trial showed that it eliminated Black-White disparities in treatment completion rates, which was the study’s primary endpoint (Cancer Med. 2019;8:1095-1102). “It also improved treatment for all patients,” said Dr. Manning. “The current study is a follow-up on the survival of eligible patients treated during the ACCURE enrollment as compared to historical data.”

ACCURE was a multi-institutional trial designed to test a community-created intervention to reduce racial disparities. The intervention involved multiple changes to the way patients were supported while receiving cancer treatment and had four components: 

• an electronic health record with automatic alerts to flag missed appointments or unmet milestones in expected care 
• a nurse navigator trained in race-specific barriers to help patients overcome obstacles to care when alerts are flagged
• a physician champion to engage health care teams with race-related feedback on treatment completion
• regular health equity education training sessions for staff

The cohort was comprised of 1,413 patients with lung and breast cancer (stage 0-II) who were diagnosed from 2013-2015, and survival was compared to historical cases – 2,016 patients who had been treated from 2007-2011.

The results showed a significant improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with breast and lung cancer over time, and the racial gap in survival was reduced. 

The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer increased from 91% for White patients and 89% in Black patients in historical cases, to 94% for both during the study period.  

For patients with lung cancer, the 5-year survival rate improved from 43% in White patients and 37% in Black patients to 56% and 54%, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery had 5-year survival rates of 78.5% for White and 70.1% for Black patients, whereas for those who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) the rates were 41.9% and 50% respectively.

“We’ve shown it’s possible to eliminate disparities in cancer treatment completion and that this change has the potential to close cancer survival gaps downstream,” said Dr. Manning. “But we think the application can be much broader.” 

The ACCURE study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Manning and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

System-level changes to the way cancer care is delivered can help eliminate survival disparities between Black and White patients.

When barriers to completing radiation therapy were identified and addressed in a cohort of patients with early-stage lung and breast cancer, 5-year survival rates improved for all patients and closed the racial disparity gap, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

The findings come from the ACCURE clinical trial. This is the first prospective study designed to erase gaps in cancer treatment completion and survival among Black and White patient populations, explained lead author Matthew A. Manning, MD, a radiation oncologist and chief of oncology at Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C.

“Thousands of studies have looked at racial disparities in health care, but until recently, very few studies have implemented interventions to eliminate those disparities,” he said.

“This study shows that the implementation of ‘systems-change’ can eliminate racial disparities in cancer survival while improving survival for all,” he added.

“These results add to a growing body of evidence that health care disparities in cancer outcomes are eliminated or minimized by providing supportive, timely, and guideline-directed care,” said Lannis Hall, MD, MPH, director of radiation oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, and associate professor of radiation oncology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who was approached for comment

“This research supports that access to care and timely treatment completion is critical to eliminating health care disparities,” she told this news organization. The system-based intervention in this trial was designed to reduce treatment delays and provide a supportive matrix for patients confronting real-world difficulties like transportation issues, childcare complications, and work absence, she explained.
 

Eliminating racial disparities

Previous findings from the ACCURE trial showed that it eliminated Black-White disparities in treatment completion rates, which was the study’s primary endpoint (Cancer Med. 2019;8:1095-1102). “It also improved treatment for all patients,” said Dr. Manning. “The current study is a follow-up on the survival of eligible patients treated during the ACCURE enrollment as compared to historical data.”

ACCURE was a multi-institutional trial designed to test a community-created intervention to reduce racial disparities. The intervention involved multiple changes to the way patients were supported while receiving cancer treatment and had four components: 

• an electronic health record with automatic alerts to flag missed appointments or unmet milestones in expected care 
• a nurse navigator trained in race-specific barriers to help patients overcome obstacles to care when alerts are flagged
• a physician champion to engage health care teams with race-related feedback on treatment completion
• regular health equity education training sessions for staff

The cohort was comprised of 1,413 patients with lung and breast cancer (stage 0-II) who were diagnosed from 2013-2015, and survival was compared to historical cases – 2,016 patients who had been treated from 2007-2011.

The results showed a significant improvement in survival for both Black and White patients with breast and lung cancer over time, and the racial gap in survival was reduced. 

The 5-year survival rate for breast cancer increased from 91% for White patients and 89% in Black patients in historical cases, to 94% for both during the study period.  

For patients with lung cancer, the 5-year survival rate improved from 43% in White patients and 37% in Black patients to 56% and 54%, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery had 5-year survival rates of 78.5% for White and 70.1% for Black patients, whereas for those who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) the rates were 41.9% and 50% respectively.

“We’ve shown it’s possible to eliminate disparities in cancer treatment completion and that this change has the potential to close cancer survival gaps downstream,” said Dr. Manning. “But we think the application can be much broader.” 

The ACCURE study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Manning and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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