Oncology

Individuals with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were more vulnerable than healthy controls to epithelial cell changes caused by microplastics exposure, based on data from a new simulation study.

Microplastic fibers present in the ambient air can be inhaled into the lungs and promote a range of complications including oxidative stress, local injury, and cytotoxicity, but data on the effects of microplastic fibers on individuals with obstructive lung diseases are limited, wrote Magdalena Poplinska-Goryca, MD, of the Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland, and colleagues. 

In a study published in Scientific Reports, the researchers identified 10 adults aged ≥ 18 years with asthma, eight adults aged ≥ 40 years with COPD, and 11 healthy adult controls. Individuals with more serious conditions such as severe asthma or COPD, unstable or uncontrolled disease, concomitant malignancies, or chronic or acute lung disease were excluded.

The researchers obtained nasal epithelial cells from all participants, and exposed these cells to microplastic fibers created by the researchers in a laboratory setting. Overall, asthmatic and COPD airway epithelial cells showed a different reaction to microplastic fibers stimulation compared to healthy epithelial cells. The most significant response was associated with Th2 inflammation, modulation of stress response, and carcinogenesis. No differences in cytotoxic or minor inflammatory effects on epithelial cells of patients with asthma or COPD were noted compared with healthy controls. 

In addition, flow cytometric analysis showed increased CD24+ epithelial cells in asthma patients compared to controls after microplastics exposure.

“Many of the gene candidates selected from RNA-Seq analysis are related to cancer (upregulated in many cancer types according to the literature), and the activation of CD24 on primarily ciliated asthmatic epithelial cells after microplastic stimulation further supports this theory,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of nasal rather than bronchial epithelial cells, which would have yielded more information, the researchers noted. Also, patients with severe asthma and COPD were excluded, they said, because of the impact of oral steroid and antibiotic use by this patient group on epithelial cell immunology that could bias the results of epithelial response to microplastic fiber exposure.

However, the results suggest that “the structural impairment of the airway epithelium in obstructive diseases enhances the impact of microplastic particles compared to healthy epithelium,” the researchers concluded.

 

Current and Future Implications

The current study is important in addressing the increasing environmental presence of microplastics and their potential impact on respiratory health, said Seyedmohammad Pourshahid, MD, assistant professor of thoracic medicine and surgery at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“By examining how microplastics interact with airway epithelial cells, particularly in individuals with asthma and COPD, the research aims to elucidate mechanisms that could contribute to disease progression or exacerbation,” he said. 

“The study’s findings that microplastics did not induce a strong inflammatory response, unlike other pollutants such as PM2.5, were unexpected; instead, microplastics appeared to influence pathways related to airway remodeling and oxidative stress,” Pourshahid noted. “This suggests that microplastics may affect respiratory health through mechanisms distinct from traditional pollutants,” he said.

“While preliminary, this research highlights the potential role of environmental microplastic exposure in respiratory diseases,” Pourshahid told this news organization. “Clinicians should be aware of emerging environmental factors that could impact patient health, especially in individuals with asthma and COPD. This awareness may inform patient education and advocacy for reducing exposure to airborne microplastics,” he said.

More studies are needed to explore the long-term effects of microplastic exposure on respiratory health, particularly in vulnerable populations, said Pourshahid. Research with in vivo models is necessary to confirm the findings and assess potential clinical implications to confirm these findings and assess potential clinical implications, he said. “Understanding the prevalence and sources of daily microplastic exposure can inform public health strategies to mitigate risks,” he added.

The study was supported by the Jakub Potocki Foundation. Paplińska-Goryca and Pourshahid had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Individuals with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were more vulnerable than healthy controls to epithelial cell changes caused by microplastics exposure, based on data from a new simulation study.

Microplastic fibers present in the ambient air can be inhaled into the lungs and promote a range of complications including oxidative stress, local injury, and cytotoxicity, but data on the effects of microplastic fibers on individuals with obstructive lung diseases are limited, wrote Magdalena Poplinska-Goryca, MD, of the Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland, and colleagues. 

In a study published in Scientific Reports, the researchers identified 10 adults aged ≥ 18 years with asthma, eight adults aged ≥ 40 years with COPD, and 11 healthy adult controls. Individuals with more serious conditions such as severe asthma or COPD, unstable or uncontrolled disease, concomitant malignancies, or chronic or acute lung disease were excluded.

The researchers obtained nasal epithelial cells from all participants, and exposed these cells to microplastic fibers created by the researchers in a laboratory setting. Overall, asthmatic and COPD airway epithelial cells showed a different reaction to microplastic fibers stimulation compared to healthy epithelial cells. The most significant response was associated with Th2 inflammation, modulation of stress response, and carcinogenesis. No differences in cytotoxic or minor inflammatory effects on epithelial cells of patients with asthma or COPD were noted compared with healthy controls. 

In addition, flow cytometric analysis showed increased CD24+ epithelial cells in asthma patients compared to controls after microplastics exposure.

“Many of the gene candidates selected from RNA-Seq analysis are related to cancer (upregulated in many cancer types according to the literature), and the activation of CD24 on primarily ciliated asthmatic epithelial cells after microplastic stimulation further supports this theory,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of nasal rather than bronchial epithelial cells, which would have yielded more information, the researchers noted. Also, patients with severe asthma and COPD were excluded, they said, because of the impact of oral steroid and antibiotic use by this patient group on epithelial cell immunology that could bias the results of epithelial response to microplastic fiber exposure.

However, the results suggest that “the structural impairment of the airway epithelium in obstructive diseases enhances the impact of microplastic particles compared to healthy epithelium,” the researchers concluded.

 

Current and Future Implications

The current study is important in addressing the increasing environmental presence of microplastics and their potential impact on respiratory health, said Seyedmohammad Pourshahid, MD, assistant professor of thoracic medicine and surgery at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“By examining how microplastics interact with airway epithelial cells, particularly in individuals with asthma and COPD, the research aims to elucidate mechanisms that could contribute to disease progression or exacerbation,” he said. 

“The study’s findings that microplastics did not induce a strong inflammatory response, unlike other pollutants such as PM2.5, were unexpected; instead, microplastics appeared to influence pathways related to airway remodeling and oxidative stress,” Pourshahid noted. “This suggests that microplastics may affect respiratory health through mechanisms distinct from traditional pollutants,” he said.

“While preliminary, this research highlights the potential role of environmental microplastic exposure in respiratory diseases,” Pourshahid told this news organization. “Clinicians should be aware of emerging environmental factors that could impact patient health, especially in individuals with asthma and COPD. This awareness may inform patient education and advocacy for reducing exposure to airborne microplastics,” he said.

More studies are needed to explore the long-term effects of microplastic exposure on respiratory health, particularly in vulnerable populations, said Pourshahid. Research with in vivo models is necessary to confirm the findings and assess potential clinical implications to confirm these findings and assess potential clinical implications, he said. “Understanding the prevalence and sources of daily microplastic exposure can inform public health strategies to mitigate risks,” he added.

The study was supported by the Jakub Potocki Foundation. Paplińska-Goryca and Pourshahid had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Individuals with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were more vulnerable than healthy controls to epithelial cell changes caused by microplastics exposure, based on data from a new simulation study.

Microplastic fibers present in the ambient air can be inhaled into the lungs and promote a range of complications including oxidative stress, local injury, and cytotoxicity, but data on the effects of microplastic fibers on individuals with obstructive lung diseases are limited, wrote Magdalena Poplinska-Goryca, MD, of the Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland, and colleagues. 

In a study published in Scientific Reports, the researchers identified 10 adults aged ≥ 18 years with asthma, eight adults aged ≥ 40 years with COPD, and 11 healthy adult controls. Individuals with more serious conditions such as severe asthma or COPD, unstable or uncontrolled disease, concomitant malignancies, or chronic or acute lung disease were excluded.

The researchers obtained nasal epithelial cells from all participants, and exposed these cells to microplastic fibers created by the researchers in a laboratory setting. Overall, asthmatic and COPD airway epithelial cells showed a different reaction to microplastic fibers stimulation compared to healthy epithelial cells. The most significant response was associated with Th2 inflammation, modulation of stress response, and carcinogenesis. No differences in cytotoxic or minor inflammatory effects on epithelial cells of patients with asthma or COPD were noted compared with healthy controls. 

In addition, flow cytometric analysis showed increased CD24+ epithelial cells in asthma patients compared to controls after microplastics exposure.

“Many of the gene candidates selected from RNA-Seq analysis are related to cancer (upregulated in many cancer types according to the literature), and the activation of CD24 on primarily ciliated asthmatic epithelial cells after microplastic stimulation further supports this theory,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of nasal rather than bronchial epithelial cells, which would have yielded more information, the researchers noted. Also, patients with severe asthma and COPD were excluded, they said, because of the impact of oral steroid and antibiotic use by this patient group on epithelial cell immunology that could bias the results of epithelial response to microplastic fiber exposure.

However, the results suggest that “the structural impairment of the airway epithelium in obstructive diseases enhances the impact of microplastic particles compared to healthy epithelium,” the researchers concluded.

 

Current and Future Implications

The current study is important in addressing the increasing environmental presence of microplastics and their potential impact on respiratory health, said Seyedmohammad Pourshahid, MD, assistant professor of thoracic medicine and surgery at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“By examining how microplastics interact with airway epithelial cells, particularly in individuals with asthma and COPD, the research aims to elucidate mechanisms that could contribute to disease progression or exacerbation,” he said. 

“The study’s findings that microplastics did not induce a strong inflammatory response, unlike other pollutants such as PM2.5, were unexpected; instead, microplastics appeared to influence pathways related to airway remodeling and oxidative stress,” Pourshahid noted. “This suggests that microplastics may affect respiratory health through mechanisms distinct from traditional pollutants,” he said.

“While preliminary, this research highlights the potential role of environmental microplastic exposure in respiratory diseases,” Pourshahid told this news organization. “Clinicians should be aware of emerging environmental factors that could impact patient health, especially in individuals with asthma and COPD. This awareness may inform patient education and advocacy for reducing exposure to airborne microplastics,” he said.

More studies are needed to explore the long-term effects of microplastic exposure on respiratory health, particularly in vulnerable populations, said Pourshahid. Research with in vivo models is necessary to confirm the findings and assess potential clinical implications to confirm these findings and assess potential clinical implications, he said. “Understanding the prevalence and sources of daily microplastic exposure can inform public health strategies to mitigate risks,” he added.

The study was supported by the Jakub Potocki Foundation. Paplińska-Goryca and Pourshahid had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

A diet high in omega-3 and low in omega-6 fatty acids, alongside fish oil supplements, may curb the growth of prostate cancer cells in men with early-stage disease, new data showed.

Among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer, consuming this diet for a year led to a significant decrease in the prostate cancer tissue Ki-67 index, a biomarker for prostate cancer progression, metastasis, and death, according to findings from the phase 2 CAPFISH-3 study presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“This data is certainly intriguing and supports studies looking at this further in prostate cancer,” Bradley Alexander McGregor, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. But, McGregor noted, patients were on the diet for 1 year, and the long-term implications of this diet are not known.

 

Growing Evidence on Diet

Diets that include fried and processed foods tend to be high in omega 6s, while those that include salmon and tuna are higher in omega 3s.

Research has shown that consuming more omega-3 fatty acids is associated with a lower risk for mortality from prostate cancer, explained study investigator William Aronson, MD, with David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Research suggests that ingesting more omega-6 accelerates the growth of human tumors in mice, while raising omega-3 levels lowers it. High omega-3 and low omega-6 are also known to have an inhibitory effect on M2-like macrophages, which are the predominant immune cell type in prostate cancer metastasis.

To investigate the impact of these fatty acids on early-stage prostate cancer, Aronson and colleagues conducted a single-center, phase 2, randomized, open-label study in 100 men with grade 1/2 prostate cancer who elected active surveillance.

Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to a control group that continued their normal diet (minus fish oil) or to an intervention group that followed a low omega-6/high omega-3 diet, supplemented with fish oil (2.2 g/d), for 1 year.

The primary endpoint was the change in Ki-67 index from baseline to 1 year from same-site biopsies between the groups.

For the primary endpoint, the Ki-67 index decreased in the intervention group by 15% from baseline to 1 year and increased in the control group by 24%. The difference between groups was statistically significant (P = .043).

For the secondary endpoints, the intervention led to a reduction in triglyceride levels and macrophage colony stimulating factor but no change in tumor volume grade group, PSA level, or Decipher 22 gene score.

Aronson said the findings support future phase 3 trials incorporating this intervention among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

McGregor said it’s important to note that this was “an aggressive intervention with dietary changes and addition of fish oil and patients need to be highly motivated.” Four men discontinued due to adverse effects — primarily gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea and nausea — larger sample sizes will be key to better understand the tolerability.

Bottom line, said McGregor, “based on this data alone, it should not be recommended but can be considered for highly motivated patients after discussion of the limitations of available data and side effects.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute, the UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Howard B. Klein, and the Seafood Industry Research Fund. Aronson disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Janssen Oncology, and Pfizer/Astellas. McGregor disclosed relationships with Arcus Biosciences, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Genmab, Gilead Sciences, Loxo/Lilly, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics/Astellas.

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

A diet high in omega-3 and low in omega-6 fatty acids, alongside fish oil supplements, may curb the growth of prostate cancer cells in men with early-stage disease, new data showed.

Among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer, consuming this diet for a year led to a significant decrease in the prostate cancer tissue Ki-67 index, a biomarker for prostate cancer progression, metastasis, and death, according to findings from the phase 2 CAPFISH-3 study presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“This data is certainly intriguing and supports studies looking at this further in prostate cancer,” Bradley Alexander McGregor, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. But, McGregor noted, patients were on the diet for 1 year, and the long-term implications of this diet are not known.

 

Growing Evidence on Diet

Diets that include fried and processed foods tend to be high in omega 6s, while those that include salmon and tuna are higher in omega 3s.

Research has shown that consuming more omega-3 fatty acids is associated with a lower risk for mortality from prostate cancer, explained study investigator William Aronson, MD, with David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Research suggests that ingesting more omega-6 accelerates the growth of human tumors in mice, while raising omega-3 levels lowers it. High omega-3 and low omega-6 are also known to have an inhibitory effect on M2-like macrophages, which are the predominant immune cell type in prostate cancer metastasis.

To investigate the impact of these fatty acids on early-stage prostate cancer, Aronson and colleagues conducted a single-center, phase 2, randomized, open-label study in 100 men with grade 1/2 prostate cancer who elected active surveillance.

Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to a control group that continued their normal diet (minus fish oil) or to an intervention group that followed a low omega-6/high omega-3 diet, supplemented with fish oil (2.2 g/d), for 1 year.

The primary endpoint was the change in Ki-67 index from baseline to 1 year from same-site biopsies between the groups.

For the primary endpoint, the Ki-67 index decreased in the intervention group by 15% from baseline to 1 year and increased in the control group by 24%. The difference between groups was statistically significant (P = .043).

For the secondary endpoints, the intervention led to a reduction in triglyceride levels and macrophage colony stimulating factor but no change in tumor volume grade group, PSA level, or Decipher 22 gene score.

Aronson said the findings support future phase 3 trials incorporating this intervention among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

McGregor said it’s important to note that this was “an aggressive intervention with dietary changes and addition of fish oil and patients need to be highly motivated.” Four men discontinued due to adverse effects — primarily gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea and nausea — larger sample sizes will be key to better understand the tolerability.

Bottom line, said McGregor, “based on this data alone, it should not be recommended but can be considered for highly motivated patients after discussion of the limitations of available data and side effects.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute, the UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Howard B. Klein, and the Seafood Industry Research Fund. Aronson disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Janssen Oncology, and Pfizer/Astellas. McGregor disclosed relationships with Arcus Biosciences, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Genmab, Gilead Sciences, Loxo/Lilly, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics/Astellas.

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

A diet high in omega-3 and low in omega-6 fatty acids, alongside fish oil supplements, may curb the growth of prostate cancer cells in men with early-stage disease, new data showed.

Among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer, consuming this diet for a year led to a significant decrease in the prostate cancer tissue Ki-67 index, a biomarker for prostate cancer progression, metastasis, and death, according to findings from the phase 2 CAPFISH-3 study presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“This data is certainly intriguing and supports studies looking at this further in prostate cancer,” Bradley Alexander McGregor, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. But, McGregor noted, patients were on the diet for 1 year, and the long-term implications of this diet are not known.

 

Growing Evidence on Diet

Diets that include fried and processed foods tend to be high in omega 6s, while those that include salmon and tuna are higher in omega 3s.

Research has shown that consuming more omega-3 fatty acids is associated with a lower risk for mortality from prostate cancer, explained study investigator William Aronson, MD, with David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Research suggests that ingesting more omega-6 accelerates the growth of human tumors in mice, while raising omega-3 levels lowers it. High omega-3 and low omega-6 are also known to have an inhibitory effect on M2-like macrophages, which are the predominant immune cell type in prostate cancer metastasis.

To investigate the impact of these fatty acids on early-stage prostate cancer, Aronson and colleagues conducted a single-center, phase 2, randomized, open-label study in 100 men with grade 1/2 prostate cancer who elected active surveillance.

Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to a control group that continued their normal diet (minus fish oil) or to an intervention group that followed a low omega-6/high omega-3 diet, supplemented with fish oil (2.2 g/d), for 1 year.

The primary endpoint was the change in Ki-67 index from baseline to 1 year from same-site biopsies between the groups.

For the primary endpoint, the Ki-67 index decreased in the intervention group by 15% from baseline to 1 year and increased in the control group by 24%. The difference between groups was statistically significant (P = .043).

For the secondary endpoints, the intervention led to a reduction in triglyceride levels and macrophage colony stimulating factor but no change in tumor volume grade group, PSA level, or Decipher 22 gene score.

Aronson said the findings support future phase 3 trials incorporating this intervention among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

McGregor said it’s important to note that this was “an aggressive intervention with dietary changes and addition of fish oil and patients need to be highly motivated.” Four men discontinued due to adverse effects — primarily gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea and nausea — larger sample sizes will be key to better understand the tolerability.

Bottom line, said McGregor, “based on this data alone, it should not be recommended but can be considered for highly motivated patients after discussion of the limitations of available data and side effects.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute, the UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Howard B. Klein, and the Seafood Industry Research Fund. Aronson disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Janssen Oncology, and Pfizer/Astellas. McGregor disclosed relationships with Arcus Biosciences, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Genmab, Gilead Sciences, Loxo/Lilly, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics/Astellas.

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

This article is a based on a video essay. The transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss what I think is a very interesting analysis that we need to see much more of. It’s perhaps not surprising, but the data, I think, are sobering. The paper was published in JAMA Network Open, entitled, “Trends and Disparities in Next-Generation Sequencing in Metastatic Prostate and Urothelial Cancers.”

As I think most of the listening audience is aware, we are in the midst of an ongoing — I would argue, accelerating — revolution in our understanding of cancer, its development and treatments, based upon our characterization at the molecular level of individual cancers.

This, of course, is changing the treatment paradigms and the drugs that we might have available in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. The question to be asked is, how are we, at a clinical level, keeping up with all of these changes, like those approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and new diagnostic testing with a variety of molecular platforms?

This particular analysis looked at that specific question in metastatic prostate cancer and urothelial malignancies, obviously including bladder cancer. With the new approvals — including tumor agnostic testing, very specific testing, and very molecularly based drugs that are approved for particular abnormalities — they looked at the percentages of patients and the potential disparities in terms of the testing that has been performed.

There were 11,927 patients with prostate cancer. There were 6490 patients with advanced urothelial malignancies; the majority of these were male, but there were females included in this group.

The researchers looked at 2015 vs 2022 data. It’s not 2024 data, but it goes all the way to the end of 2022, so, not that long ago. In the metastatic prostate cancer group, 19% of patients had undergone molecular testing or next-generation sequencing in 2015.

By 2022, that number had increased, but only to 27%. Three out of four patients with metastatic prostate cancer had not undergone testing to know whether they were potential candidates for specific therapies. I won’t even get into the question of potential germline abnormalities that might be observed that are relevant for other discussions.

Among patients with urothelial cancer, in 2015, 14% had undergone such testing. By 2022, this number was substantially increased to 46.6%, but still, that’s less than 1 out of 2 patients. More than 50% of patients had not undergone the testing, and yet we have therapy that might be available for these populations based on such testing.

I should add that the population of Black, African American, and Hispanic patients was actually considerably lower, percentage-wise, than the numbers that I’ve quoted.

Clearly, there are explanations. There are socioeconomic explanations and insurance coverage explanations. However, the bottom line is that we have therapies available today, and we’ll have more in the future, that are based on knowledge of this testing.

Based on these data, which most recently included 2022 — we’ll see where we are in 2024 and 2025, and with other types — more than half of patients are not getting the testing to know if this is relevant for them and their care.

These are major questions that need to be addressed. Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming and we will see in the future that these percentages will be much higher for the benefit of our patients.

Dr Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This article is a based on a video essay. The transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss what I think is a very interesting analysis that we need to see much more of. It’s perhaps not surprising, but the data, I think, are sobering. The paper was published in JAMA Network Open, entitled, “Trends and Disparities in Next-Generation Sequencing in Metastatic Prostate and Urothelial Cancers.”

As I think most of the listening audience is aware, we are in the midst of an ongoing — I would argue, accelerating — revolution in our understanding of cancer, its development and treatments, based upon our characterization at the molecular level of individual cancers.

This, of course, is changing the treatment paradigms and the drugs that we might have available in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. The question to be asked is, how are we, at a clinical level, keeping up with all of these changes, like those approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and new diagnostic testing with a variety of molecular platforms?

This particular analysis looked at that specific question in metastatic prostate cancer and urothelial malignancies, obviously including bladder cancer. With the new approvals — including tumor agnostic testing, very specific testing, and very molecularly based drugs that are approved for particular abnormalities — they looked at the percentages of patients and the potential disparities in terms of the testing that has been performed.

There were 11,927 patients with prostate cancer. There were 6490 patients with advanced urothelial malignancies; the majority of these were male, but there were females included in this group.

The researchers looked at 2015 vs 2022 data. It’s not 2024 data, but it goes all the way to the end of 2022, so, not that long ago. In the metastatic prostate cancer group, 19% of patients had undergone molecular testing or next-generation sequencing in 2015.

By 2022, that number had increased, but only to 27%. Three out of four patients with metastatic prostate cancer had not undergone testing to know whether they were potential candidates for specific therapies. I won’t even get into the question of potential germline abnormalities that might be observed that are relevant for other discussions.

Among patients with urothelial cancer, in 2015, 14% had undergone such testing. By 2022, this number was substantially increased to 46.6%, but still, that’s less than 1 out of 2 patients. More than 50% of patients had not undergone the testing, and yet we have therapy that might be available for these populations based on such testing.

I should add that the population of Black, African American, and Hispanic patients was actually considerably lower, percentage-wise, than the numbers that I’ve quoted.

Clearly, there are explanations. There are socioeconomic explanations and insurance coverage explanations. However, the bottom line is that we have therapies available today, and we’ll have more in the future, that are based on knowledge of this testing.

Based on these data, which most recently included 2022 — we’ll see where we are in 2024 and 2025, and with other types — more than half of patients are not getting the testing to know if this is relevant for them and their care.

These are major questions that need to be addressed. Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming and we will see in the future that these percentages will be much higher for the benefit of our patients.

Dr Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This article is a based on a video essay. The transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss what I think is a very interesting analysis that we need to see much more of. It’s perhaps not surprising, but the data, I think, are sobering. The paper was published in JAMA Network Open, entitled, “Trends and Disparities in Next-Generation Sequencing in Metastatic Prostate and Urothelial Cancers.”

As I think most of the listening audience is aware, we are in the midst of an ongoing — I would argue, accelerating — revolution in our understanding of cancer, its development and treatments, based upon our characterization at the molecular level of individual cancers.

This, of course, is changing the treatment paradigms and the drugs that we might have available in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. The question to be asked is, how are we, at a clinical level, keeping up with all of these changes, like those approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and new diagnostic testing with a variety of molecular platforms?

This particular analysis looked at that specific question in metastatic prostate cancer and urothelial malignancies, obviously including bladder cancer. With the new approvals — including tumor agnostic testing, very specific testing, and very molecularly based drugs that are approved for particular abnormalities — they looked at the percentages of patients and the potential disparities in terms of the testing that has been performed.

There were 11,927 patients with prostate cancer. There were 6490 patients with advanced urothelial malignancies; the majority of these were male, but there were females included in this group.

The researchers looked at 2015 vs 2022 data. It’s not 2024 data, but it goes all the way to the end of 2022, so, not that long ago. In the metastatic prostate cancer group, 19% of patients had undergone molecular testing or next-generation sequencing in 2015.

By 2022, that number had increased, but only to 27%. Three out of four patients with metastatic prostate cancer had not undergone testing to know whether they were potential candidates for specific therapies. I won’t even get into the question of potential germline abnormalities that might be observed that are relevant for other discussions.

Among patients with urothelial cancer, in 2015, 14% had undergone such testing. By 2022, this number was substantially increased to 46.6%, but still, that’s less than 1 out of 2 patients. More than 50% of patients had not undergone the testing, and yet we have therapy that might be available for these populations based on such testing.

I should add that the population of Black, African American, and Hispanic patients was actually considerably lower, percentage-wise, than the numbers that I’ve quoted.

Clearly, there are explanations. There are socioeconomic explanations and insurance coverage explanations. However, the bottom line is that we have therapies available today, and we’ll have more in the future, that are based on knowledge of this testing.

Based on these data, which most recently included 2022 — we’ll see where we are in 2024 and 2025, and with other types — more than half of patients are not getting the testing to know if this is relevant for them and their care.

These are major questions that need to be addressed. Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming and we will see in the future that these percentages will be much higher for the benefit of our patients.

Dr Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

TOPLINE:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show promise for field cancerization, based on their ability to reduce actinic keratoses (AKs) in a new study.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study included 23 immunocompetent participants (26.1% women; mean age, 69.7 years) from Australia who received ICIs for any cancer between April 2022 and November 2023.
• The most frequently prescribed ICI regimen was a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab (34.8%), followed by nivolumab monotherapy (26.1%) and cemiplimab (21.7%) or pembrolizumab (17.4%) monotherapy.
• More than half of the patients received ICI therapy for skin cancer (melanoma, 30.4%; cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, 26.1%); 34.8% had lung cancer; two had other carcinomas.
• The primary outcome was the number of AKs at 12 months after starting ICI therapy; the secondary outcome was the number of keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs) excised 12 months before and after ICI therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, one patient had complete resolution from AK, and the mean number of AKs significantly decreased from 47.2 at baseline to 14.3 (P < .001).
• Younger patients (66.7% vs 33.3%; P = .007) and those with a history of blistering sunburn (100% vs 0; P = .005) were more likely to experience ≥ 65% reduction in AK count.
• KC incidence in the year before ICI therapy vs the year after initiation dropped from 42 to 17 cases, respectively, and the number of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas decreased from 16 to 5.
• Adverse events occurred in 11 participants (47.8%), with maculopapular rash or pruritus the most common.

IN PRACTICE:

“This pilot cohort study highlights the potential association of ICI therapy, originally used in cancer treatment, with significant reduction of clinical AKs,” the authors wrote. These findings, they said, “underscore ICIs’ potential as a novel approach to mitigating field cancerization in high-risk populations.”

SOURCE:

Charlotte Cox, MD, MPhil, MPHTM, BMSt, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included interrater reliability issues in AK counting. Not all patients completed the follow-up period, and observations about changes after stopping ICI therapy were limited. Surveillance bias could be present in KC reporting.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from the Metro South Health SERTA project and by the French Society of Dermatology, La Ligue Contre le Cancer, the Collège des Enseignants en Dermatologie de France, and the European Association of Dermatology and Venereology. Cox received personal fees from the University of Queensland scholarship funds during this work. Some authors reported receiving personal fees and support from pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show promise for field cancerization, based on their ability to reduce actinic keratoses (AKs) in a new study.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study included 23 immunocompetent participants (26.1% women; mean age, 69.7 years) from Australia who received ICIs for any cancer between April 2022 and November 2023.
• The most frequently prescribed ICI regimen was a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab (34.8%), followed by nivolumab monotherapy (26.1%) and cemiplimab (21.7%) or pembrolizumab (17.4%) monotherapy.
• More than half of the patients received ICI therapy for skin cancer (melanoma, 30.4%; cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, 26.1%); 34.8% had lung cancer; two had other carcinomas.
• The primary outcome was the number of AKs at 12 months after starting ICI therapy; the secondary outcome was the number of keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs) excised 12 months before and after ICI therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, one patient had complete resolution from AK, and the mean number of AKs significantly decreased from 47.2 at baseline to 14.3 (P < .001).
• Younger patients (66.7% vs 33.3%; P = .007) and those with a history of blistering sunburn (100% vs 0; P = .005) were more likely to experience ≥ 65% reduction in AK count.
• KC incidence in the year before ICI therapy vs the year after initiation dropped from 42 to 17 cases, respectively, and the number of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas decreased from 16 to 5.
• Adverse events occurred in 11 participants (47.8%), with maculopapular rash or pruritus the most common.

IN PRACTICE:

“This pilot cohort study highlights the potential association of ICI therapy, originally used in cancer treatment, with significant reduction of clinical AKs,” the authors wrote. These findings, they said, “underscore ICIs’ potential as a novel approach to mitigating field cancerization in high-risk populations.”

SOURCE:

Charlotte Cox, MD, MPhil, MPHTM, BMSt, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included interrater reliability issues in AK counting. Not all patients completed the follow-up period, and observations about changes after stopping ICI therapy were limited. Surveillance bias could be present in KC reporting.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from the Metro South Health SERTA project and by the French Society of Dermatology, La Ligue Contre le Cancer, the Collège des Enseignants en Dermatologie de France, and the European Association of Dermatology and Venereology. Cox received personal fees from the University of Queensland scholarship funds during this work. Some authors reported receiving personal fees and support from pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show promise for field cancerization, based on their ability to reduce actinic keratoses (AKs) in a new study.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study included 23 immunocompetent participants (26.1% women; mean age, 69.7 years) from Australia who received ICIs for any cancer between April 2022 and November 2023.
• The most frequently prescribed ICI regimen was a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab (34.8%), followed by nivolumab monotherapy (26.1%) and cemiplimab (21.7%) or pembrolizumab (17.4%) monotherapy.
• More than half of the patients received ICI therapy for skin cancer (melanoma, 30.4%; cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, 26.1%); 34.8% had lung cancer; two had other carcinomas.
• The primary outcome was the number of AKs at 12 months after starting ICI therapy; the secondary outcome was the number of keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs) excised 12 months before and after ICI therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, one patient had complete resolution from AK, and the mean number of AKs significantly decreased from 47.2 at baseline to 14.3 (P < .001).
• Younger patients (66.7% vs 33.3%; P = .007) and those with a history of blistering sunburn (100% vs 0; P = .005) were more likely to experience ≥ 65% reduction in AK count.
• KC incidence in the year before ICI therapy vs the year after initiation dropped from 42 to 17 cases, respectively, and the number of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas decreased from 16 to 5.
• Adverse events occurred in 11 participants (47.8%), with maculopapular rash or pruritus the most common.

IN PRACTICE:

“This pilot cohort study highlights the potential association of ICI therapy, originally used in cancer treatment, with significant reduction of clinical AKs,” the authors wrote. These findings, they said, “underscore ICIs’ potential as a novel approach to mitigating field cancerization in high-risk populations.”

SOURCE:

Charlotte Cox, MD, MPhil, MPHTM, BMSt, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included interrater reliability issues in AK counting. Not all patients completed the follow-up period, and observations about changes after stopping ICI therapy were limited. Surveillance bias could be present in KC reporting.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from the Metro South Health SERTA project and by the French Society of Dermatology, La Ligue Contre le Cancer, the Collège des Enseignants en Dermatologie de France, and the European Association of Dermatology and Venereology. Cox received personal fees from the University of Queensland scholarship funds during this work. Some authors reported receiving personal fees and support from pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has shown efficacy in blood cancers — with six CAR T-cell products now approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat six hematologic malignancies.

For solid tumors, however, the efficacy of CAR T-cell treatments has been limited and progress “more incremental,” Christian Hinrichs, MD, with Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Brunswick, New Jersey, told this news organization. Currently, there are no CAR T-cell therapies approved in the United States to treat solid tumors.

Why have CAR T-cell therapies been less effective against solid tumors?

Perhaps the biggest hurdle is the ability to identify and selectively target specific molecular structures in cancer cells without causing severe toxicity by injuring healthy cells, Hinrichs and coauthors wrote in a recent JAMA review.

CAR T-cells are made up of “T cells genetically engineered to express a synthetic receptor that recognizes a tumor cell-surface protein,” Hinrichs and colleagues explained. But identifying cell surface antigens that are exclusive to solid tumor cells has been a challenge, which means CAR T-cell therapies end up affecting both tumor and healthy tissues.

“This makes it difficult to target and kill all the tumor cells without causing severe toxicity from injury to healthy cells,” Hinrichs explained.

Other common obstacles include challenges penetrating the dense extracellular matrix of solid tumors and the need to overcome inhibitory cells and molecules in the tumor microenvironment.

Despite the challenges and slow progress, some “promising results” have begun to emerge in the solid tumor, CAR T-cell space, Hinrichs said.

A recent phase 1-2 study, for instance, found that 63% (17 of 27) of pediatric patients with heavily pretreated neuroblastoma achieved an overall response with an investigational CAR T-cell therapy, GD2-CART01.

In a recent phase 1 trial, 38 of 98 patients with gastrointestinal cancers (39%) achieved partial or complete responses after receiving an investigational CAR T-cell treatment directed at Claudin18.2. However, the responses were short overall and could have been related to the chemotherapy given before the CAR T-cell infusion.

Another phase 1 trial found that a GPC3-targeted CAR T-cell therapy led to an objective response rate in half (12 of 24) of heavily treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, with a disease control rate of almost 91%.

Outside of CAR-T cell therapies, other cell-based treatments have shown promise against solid tumors, including two T-cell therapies recently approved by the FDA.

Last February, the FDA approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel (Amtagvi) for advanced melanoma. In August, the agency approved the T-cell receptor (TCR) therapy afamitresgene autoleucel for advanced synovial sarcoma.

“Response rates for these cellular therapies are in the 30% range, but already there is clear data that there’s durability for some patients, which is very exciting because previously treated patients really have very few treatment options,” Jennifer Brudno, MD, with the National Cancer Institute and coauthor of the JAMA review, said in a journal podcast.

Several cell-based agents are in early trials to treat a range of solid tumors.

Hinrichs and colleagues previously reported findings from a phase 2 clinical trial of TIL therapy for human papillomavirus (HPV) — associated cancers including cervical, oropharyngeal, and anal cancers. Responses occurred in 5 of 18 patients with cervical cancer and 2 of 11 patients with noncervical cancers. “Two of the patients with cervical cancer had complete responses that are ongoing years after a single infusion of cells,” Hinrichs told this news organization.

Hinrichs was also involved in a phase 1 trial of gene-engineered TCR T-cells targeting HPV E7 for HPV-associated cancers reported tumor responses in 6 of 12 patients, including 4 of 8 with tumors refractory to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. A phase 2 trial is now open at Rutgers Cancer Institute, as is an early trial testing a new TCR T-cell therapy targeting Kita-Kyushu Lung Cancer Antigen-1 to treat metastatic gastric, lung, breast, and cervical cancers.

Despite the encouraging findings, for CAR T-cell and other cell-based therapies to be successful against solid tumors, “we need to develop more treatments directed against antigens that are expressed by most or all the cells in a tumor but not by critical healthy tissues,” Hinrichs said.

“It may also be important to increase the potency of therapeutic cells and develop more sophisticated methods of antigen targeting that can better distinguish between tumors and healthy tissues,” he noted.

Brudno reported being an unpaid scientific advisory board member for and receiving travel expenses from Kyverna Therapeutics. Hinrichs reported receiving personal fees from Neogene Therapeutics, Capstan Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Vir Biotechnology, and PACT Pharma; equity from Scarlet TCR (company officer); and sponsored research agreements from T-Cure Biosciences and Neogene Therapeutics outside the submitted work. He also holds several patents related to cellular therapies.

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has shown efficacy in blood cancers — with six CAR T-cell products now approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat six hematologic malignancies.

For solid tumors, however, the efficacy of CAR T-cell treatments has been limited and progress “more incremental,” Christian Hinrichs, MD, with Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Brunswick, New Jersey, told this news organization. Currently, there are no CAR T-cell therapies approved in the United States to treat solid tumors.

Why have CAR T-cell therapies been less effective against solid tumors?

Perhaps the biggest hurdle is the ability to identify and selectively target specific molecular structures in cancer cells without causing severe toxicity by injuring healthy cells, Hinrichs and coauthors wrote in a recent JAMA review.

CAR T-cells are made up of “T cells genetically engineered to express a synthetic receptor that recognizes a tumor cell-surface protein,” Hinrichs and colleagues explained. But identifying cell surface antigens that are exclusive to solid tumor cells has been a challenge, which means CAR T-cell therapies end up affecting both tumor and healthy tissues.

“This makes it difficult to target and kill all the tumor cells without causing severe toxicity from injury to healthy cells,” Hinrichs explained.

Other common obstacles include challenges penetrating the dense extracellular matrix of solid tumors and the need to overcome inhibitory cells and molecules in the tumor microenvironment.

Despite the challenges and slow progress, some “promising results” have begun to emerge in the solid tumor, CAR T-cell space, Hinrichs said.

A recent phase 1-2 study, for instance, found that 63% (17 of 27) of pediatric patients with heavily pretreated neuroblastoma achieved an overall response with an investigational CAR T-cell therapy, GD2-CART01.

In a recent phase 1 trial, 38 of 98 patients with gastrointestinal cancers (39%) achieved partial or complete responses after receiving an investigational CAR T-cell treatment directed at Claudin18.2. However, the responses were short overall and could have been related to the chemotherapy given before the CAR T-cell infusion.

Another phase 1 trial found that a GPC3-targeted CAR T-cell therapy led to an objective response rate in half (12 of 24) of heavily treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, with a disease control rate of almost 91%.

Outside of CAR-T cell therapies, other cell-based treatments have shown promise against solid tumors, including two T-cell therapies recently approved by the FDA.

Last February, the FDA approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel (Amtagvi) for advanced melanoma. In August, the agency approved the T-cell receptor (TCR) therapy afamitresgene autoleucel for advanced synovial sarcoma.

“Response rates for these cellular therapies are in the 30% range, but already there is clear data that there’s durability for some patients, which is very exciting because previously treated patients really have very few treatment options,” Jennifer Brudno, MD, with the National Cancer Institute and coauthor of the JAMA review, said in a journal podcast.

Several cell-based agents are in early trials to treat a range of solid tumors.

Hinrichs and colleagues previously reported findings from a phase 2 clinical trial of TIL therapy for human papillomavirus (HPV) — associated cancers including cervical, oropharyngeal, and anal cancers. Responses occurred in 5 of 18 patients with cervical cancer and 2 of 11 patients with noncervical cancers. “Two of the patients with cervical cancer had complete responses that are ongoing years after a single infusion of cells,” Hinrichs told this news organization.

Hinrichs was also involved in a phase 1 trial of gene-engineered TCR T-cells targeting HPV E7 for HPV-associated cancers reported tumor responses in 6 of 12 patients, including 4 of 8 with tumors refractory to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. A phase 2 trial is now open at Rutgers Cancer Institute, as is an early trial testing a new TCR T-cell therapy targeting Kita-Kyushu Lung Cancer Antigen-1 to treat metastatic gastric, lung, breast, and cervical cancers.

Despite the encouraging findings, for CAR T-cell and other cell-based therapies to be successful against solid tumors, “we need to develop more treatments directed against antigens that are expressed by most or all the cells in a tumor but not by critical healthy tissues,” Hinrichs said.

“It may also be important to increase the potency of therapeutic cells and develop more sophisticated methods of antigen targeting that can better distinguish between tumors and healthy tissues,” he noted.

Brudno reported being an unpaid scientific advisory board member for and receiving travel expenses from Kyverna Therapeutics. Hinrichs reported receiving personal fees from Neogene Therapeutics, Capstan Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Vir Biotechnology, and PACT Pharma; equity from Scarlet TCR (company officer); and sponsored research agreements from T-Cure Biosciences and Neogene Therapeutics outside the submitted work. He also holds several patents related to cellular therapies.

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has shown efficacy in blood cancers — with six CAR T-cell products now approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat six hematologic malignancies.

For solid tumors, however, the efficacy of CAR T-cell treatments has been limited and progress “more incremental,” Christian Hinrichs, MD, with Rutgers Cancer Institute in New Brunswick, New Jersey, told this news organization. Currently, there are no CAR T-cell therapies approved in the United States to treat solid tumors.

Why have CAR T-cell therapies been less effective against solid tumors?

Perhaps the biggest hurdle is the ability to identify and selectively target specific molecular structures in cancer cells without causing severe toxicity by injuring healthy cells, Hinrichs and coauthors wrote in a recent JAMA review.

CAR T-cells are made up of “T cells genetically engineered to express a synthetic receptor that recognizes a tumor cell-surface protein,” Hinrichs and colleagues explained. But identifying cell surface antigens that are exclusive to solid tumor cells has been a challenge, which means CAR T-cell therapies end up affecting both tumor and healthy tissues.

“This makes it difficult to target and kill all the tumor cells without causing severe toxicity from injury to healthy cells,” Hinrichs explained.

Other common obstacles include challenges penetrating the dense extracellular matrix of solid tumors and the need to overcome inhibitory cells and molecules in the tumor microenvironment.

Despite the challenges and slow progress, some “promising results” have begun to emerge in the solid tumor, CAR T-cell space, Hinrichs said.

A recent phase 1-2 study, for instance, found that 63% (17 of 27) of pediatric patients with heavily pretreated neuroblastoma achieved an overall response with an investigational CAR T-cell therapy, GD2-CART01.

In a recent phase 1 trial, 38 of 98 patients with gastrointestinal cancers (39%) achieved partial or complete responses after receiving an investigational CAR T-cell treatment directed at Claudin18.2. However, the responses were short overall and could have been related to the chemotherapy given before the CAR T-cell infusion.

Another phase 1 trial found that a GPC3-targeted CAR T-cell therapy led to an objective response rate in half (12 of 24) of heavily treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, with a disease control rate of almost 91%.

Outside of CAR-T cell therapies, other cell-based treatments have shown promise against solid tumors, including two T-cell therapies recently approved by the FDA.

Last February, the FDA approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel (Amtagvi) for advanced melanoma. In August, the agency approved the T-cell receptor (TCR) therapy afamitresgene autoleucel for advanced synovial sarcoma.

“Response rates for these cellular therapies are in the 30% range, but already there is clear data that there’s durability for some patients, which is very exciting because previously treated patients really have very few treatment options,” Jennifer Brudno, MD, with the National Cancer Institute and coauthor of the JAMA review, said in a journal podcast.

Several cell-based agents are in early trials to treat a range of solid tumors.

Hinrichs and colleagues previously reported findings from a phase 2 clinical trial of TIL therapy for human papillomavirus (HPV) — associated cancers including cervical, oropharyngeal, and anal cancers. Responses occurred in 5 of 18 patients with cervical cancer and 2 of 11 patients with noncervical cancers. “Two of the patients with cervical cancer had complete responses that are ongoing years after a single infusion of cells,” Hinrichs told this news organization.

Hinrichs was also involved in a phase 1 trial of gene-engineered TCR T-cells targeting HPV E7 for HPV-associated cancers reported tumor responses in 6 of 12 patients, including 4 of 8 with tumors refractory to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. A phase 2 trial is now open at Rutgers Cancer Institute, as is an early trial testing a new TCR T-cell therapy targeting Kita-Kyushu Lung Cancer Antigen-1 to treat metastatic gastric, lung, breast, and cervical cancers.

Despite the encouraging findings, for CAR T-cell and other cell-based therapies to be successful against solid tumors, “we need to develop more treatments directed against antigens that are expressed by most or all the cells in a tumor but not by critical healthy tissues,” Hinrichs said.

“It may also be important to increase the potency of therapeutic cells and develop more sophisticated methods of antigen targeting that can better distinguish between tumors and healthy tissues,” he noted.

Brudno reported being an unpaid scientific advisory board member for and receiving travel expenses from Kyverna Therapeutics. Hinrichs reported receiving personal fees from Neogene Therapeutics, Capstan Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Vir Biotechnology, and PACT Pharma; equity from Scarlet TCR (company officer); and sponsored research agreements from T-Cure Biosciences and Neogene Therapeutics outside the submitted work. He also holds several patents related to cellular therapies.

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

It is the best possible news after an advanced melanoma diagnosis: A clean 10-year scan. This, in all likelihood, means the patient is cured and can leave the office free from their annual ‘scanxiety.’ 

But even in the best-case scenarios, oncologists may dodge the word cure, searching for others such as “remission,” “no evidence of disease,” and “most likely cured” to communicate the good news. Using these more open-ended terms can give patients reassurance without providing false hope that the cancer won’t ever return.

The “risk of future recurrence — even when very small — makes oncologists reluctant to use the word cure, fearing it will be interpreted as a promise, and particularly one that might be broken,” Belinda E. Kiely, MD, and Martin R. Stockler, MD, medical oncologists from the University of Sydney in Australia, wrote in a recent editorial.

Is it ever safe for oncologists to use the word cure? Might doing so backfire? Or does a patient’s underlying fear of recurrence transcend the word?

 

A Word’s Heavy Impact

Part of clinicians’ hesitance to use the word cure may stem from a lack of accepted definition for the term in oncology.

For some experts, a cure means patients will have a normal life expectancy not affected by cancer. Being able to confidently tell a patient that “requires very long-term follow-up,” said James Larkin, PhD, a medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a similar definition: “Cure means that there are no traces of your cancer after treatment and the cancer will never come back,” the NCI website says.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, however, defines cure much more narrowly, as “when a person’s cancer has not returned for at least 5 years after treatment.” 

Not having a standard definition of cure in oncology makes it even more challenging for an oncologist to know how to communicate that a cancer very likely won’t return, without overpromising.

Some of the hesitance in framing good news comes from nuances in prognoses that depend on the type and stage of cancer, explained Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Patients with localized early-stage breast cancer, for instance, have a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100%, and most live 2 decades or longer but, for some, the cancer will return.

“If you talk about early disease, indeed, we cure 80% of breast cancer patients,” Kok said during a press conference at the annual 2024 European Society of Medical Oncology meeting. But sub-dividing breast cancer into tumor type adds complexity. “With triple negative breast cancer, if they relapse, they relapse during the first 2 or 3 years so, at 5 years, the majority are disease free. But that’s different for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer,” in which recurrences can come much later.

In advanced cancers, oncologists may, understandably, be more hesitant to use the word cure. However, ongoing progress in cancer treatments is making the prospect of a cure more likely for some patients.

Take recent findings in melanoma. The landmark CheckMate 067 study in advanced disease revealed that patients receiving the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a median melanoma-specific survival > 10 years and a median overall survival of about 6 years.

The findings from the trial suggest that “many patients may die from causes unrelated to melanoma — or, in essence, they are cured,” outside expert Elisa Funck-Brentano, MD, PhD, from Ambroise-Paré Hospital in Paris, France, explained to Medscape Medical News.

With CheckMate 067, “what we’re talking about here is potential cure of metastatic solid tumors, which in general is something that’s new,” said senior author Larkin. In fact, late relapses after the 2- to 3-year mark in immunotherapy-treated melanoma are extremely rare.

CheckMate 067 “really made people tempted to use the word cure, and I will say some people in our field do,” said Pauline Funchain, MD, a medical oncologist at Stanford Cancer Institute, and associate professor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “The rest of us really, really want to, but are hesitant because of what we know about melanoma.”

Because the reality is late relapse is still possible.

The cancer can show up decades later and I think, as oncologists, that experience has sort of shaken us,” Funchain told this news organization.

“Oncologists are scarred by those examples,” agreed Evan Hall, MD, a medical oncologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, both in Seattle.

Clinical trials also don’t typically frame patient outcomes in terms of being cured. A recent analysis, which examined the use of “cure” and “hope” in 13,363 oncology articles published between 2000 and 2019 in JAMA Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that both words were used infrequently, especially in primary research articles, and their use decreased significantly over time, even as survival rates in oncology improved. The word cure, for instance, appeared in about 0.1% of sentences in primary research papers published in either journal, though the context of its use was not identified.

Outcomes in cancer clinical trials, which may assess hundreds even thousands of patients, are largely framed in terms of risks and rates of survival — 85% of patients who received treatment X are alive at 5 years or patients receiving treatment Y have a 20% risk for recurrence, for instance.

These risks and rates can’t tell an oncologist whether the patient sitting in front of them can close the cancer chapter of their lives for good.

“I just saw a patient the other day who was 30 years out from their melanoma diagnosis, and they had a recurrence,” Hall recalled. That’s why, “ultimately, it’s a hard thing to tell somebody they’re cured,” he said. “I personally don’t really like using that term.”

While the literature on using the word cure in oncology is limited, one older survey of oncology clinicians supports this view that many feel reluctant to use the term. Of 117 oncology clinicians who responded, 81% said they were “hesitant to tell a patient that they are cured,” and 63% said that they “would never tell a patient that they are cured,” while just 36% said they were comfortable saying the word, with most respondents waiting at least 6-10 years before doing so.

A more recent Italian survey, however, revealed a more favorable view of the word cure in oncology. The survey, which included 224 clinicians and 249 patients, reported that > 90% of cancer physicians, which included surgeons, radiotherapists, and medical oncologists, agreed that it’s possible for a patient to be cured, while about 84% of patients believed this. And > 80% of respondents said using the word cure would be “beneficial” to patients.

Still, even for those hearing the word cure and feeling comforted by an oncologist’s reassurance, it may only provide short-term relief. Fear that the cancer will come slinking, even roaring, back eventually may loom. And this lingering worry can haunt cancer survivors for years.

In a recent cross-sectional study of 229 adults who survived childhood cancer and had lived cancer-free for decades, researchers found that one third reported experiencing clinically significant elevated fear that their primary cancer would recur or a subsequent malignant neoplasm would develop. Similar anxiety has been documented in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers.

To some degree, every survivor will experience fear and anxiety that their cancer will come back and, at a certain level, that is normal, the study’s senior author Nicole Alberts, PhD, a psychologist, associate professor, and Canada research chair in Behavioural Health Intervention at Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, told this news organization.

Although an oncologist’s words do matter and clinicians may wrestle with the right words for patients in the moment, it can take more than words to quell patients’ fear, she said.

“What we know about that kind of anxiety is that there’s this cycle where reassurance doesn’t really help in the long-term,” Alberts said. In other words, hearing the word cure from their oncologist initially makes people feel better, but the anxiety may eventually come back.

Alberts tries to help patients acknowledge and accept uncertainty while also calming residual or lingering anxiety about a cancer recurrence. Ultimately, Alberts’ goal is to help cancer survivors “find the sweet spot to live again.”

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

It is the best possible news after an advanced melanoma diagnosis: A clean 10-year scan. This, in all likelihood, means the patient is cured and can leave the office free from their annual ‘scanxiety.’ 

But even in the best-case scenarios, oncologists may dodge the word cure, searching for others such as “remission,” “no evidence of disease,” and “most likely cured” to communicate the good news. Using these more open-ended terms can give patients reassurance without providing false hope that the cancer won’t ever return.

The “risk of future recurrence — even when very small — makes oncologists reluctant to use the word cure, fearing it will be interpreted as a promise, and particularly one that might be broken,” Belinda E. Kiely, MD, and Martin R. Stockler, MD, medical oncologists from the University of Sydney in Australia, wrote in a recent editorial.

Is it ever safe for oncologists to use the word cure? Might doing so backfire? Or does a patient’s underlying fear of recurrence transcend the word?

 

A Word’s Heavy Impact

Part of clinicians’ hesitance to use the word cure may stem from a lack of accepted definition for the term in oncology.

For some experts, a cure means patients will have a normal life expectancy not affected by cancer. Being able to confidently tell a patient that “requires very long-term follow-up,” said James Larkin, PhD, a medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a similar definition: “Cure means that there are no traces of your cancer after treatment and the cancer will never come back,” the NCI website says.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, however, defines cure much more narrowly, as “when a person’s cancer has not returned for at least 5 years after treatment.” 

Not having a standard definition of cure in oncology makes it even more challenging for an oncologist to know how to communicate that a cancer very likely won’t return, without overpromising.

Some of the hesitance in framing good news comes from nuances in prognoses that depend on the type and stage of cancer, explained Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Patients with localized early-stage breast cancer, for instance, have a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100%, and most live 2 decades or longer but, for some, the cancer will return.

“If you talk about early disease, indeed, we cure 80% of breast cancer patients,” Kok said during a press conference at the annual 2024 European Society of Medical Oncology meeting. But sub-dividing breast cancer into tumor type adds complexity. “With triple negative breast cancer, if they relapse, they relapse during the first 2 or 3 years so, at 5 years, the majority are disease free. But that’s different for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer,” in which recurrences can come much later.

In advanced cancers, oncologists may, understandably, be more hesitant to use the word cure. However, ongoing progress in cancer treatments is making the prospect of a cure more likely for some patients.

Take recent findings in melanoma. The landmark CheckMate 067 study in advanced disease revealed that patients receiving the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a median melanoma-specific survival > 10 years and a median overall survival of about 6 years.

The findings from the trial suggest that “many patients may die from causes unrelated to melanoma — or, in essence, they are cured,” outside expert Elisa Funck-Brentano, MD, PhD, from Ambroise-Paré Hospital in Paris, France, explained to Medscape Medical News.

With CheckMate 067, “what we’re talking about here is potential cure of metastatic solid tumors, which in general is something that’s new,” said senior author Larkin. In fact, late relapses after the 2- to 3-year mark in immunotherapy-treated melanoma are extremely rare.

CheckMate 067 “really made people tempted to use the word cure, and I will say some people in our field do,” said Pauline Funchain, MD, a medical oncologist at Stanford Cancer Institute, and associate professor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “The rest of us really, really want to, but are hesitant because of what we know about melanoma.”

Because the reality is late relapse is still possible.

The cancer can show up decades later and I think, as oncologists, that experience has sort of shaken us,” Funchain told this news organization.

“Oncologists are scarred by those examples,” agreed Evan Hall, MD, a medical oncologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, both in Seattle.

Clinical trials also don’t typically frame patient outcomes in terms of being cured. A recent analysis, which examined the use of “cure” and “hope” in 13,363 oncology articles published between 2000 and 2019 in JAMA Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that both words were used infrequently, especially in primary research articles, and their use decreased significantly over time, even as survival rates in oncology improved. The word cure, for instance, appeared in about 0.1% of sentences in primary research papers published in either journal, though the context of its use was not identified.

Outcomes in cancer clinical trials, which may assess hundreds even thousands of patients, are largely framed in terms of risks and rates of survival — 85% of patients who received treatment X are alive at 5 years or patients receiving treatment Y have a 20% risk for recurrence, for instance.

These risks and rates can’t tell an oncologist whether the patient sitting in front of them can close the cancer chapter of their lives for good.

“I just saw a patient the other day who was 30 years out from their melanoma diagnosis, and they had a recurrence,” Hall recalled. That’s why, “ultimately, it’s a hard thing to tell somebody they’re cured,” he said. “I personally don’t really like using that term.”

While the literature on using the word cure in oncology is limited, one older survey of oncology clinicians supports this view that many feel reluctant to use the term. Of 117 oncology clinicians who responded, 81% said they were “hesitant to tell a patient that they are cured,” and 63% said that they “would never tell a patient that they are cured,” while just 36% said they were comfortable saying the word, with most respondents waiting at least 6-10 years before doing so.

A more recent Italian survey, however, revealed a more favorable view of the word cure in oncology. The survey, which included 224 clinicians and 249 patients, reported that > 90% of cancer physicians, which included surgeons, radiotherapists, and medical oncologists, agreed that it’s possible for a patient to be cured, while about 84% of patients believed this. And > 80% of respondents said using the word cure would be “beneficial” to patients.

Still, even for those hearing the word cure and feeling comforted by an oncologist’s reassurance, it may only provide short-term relief. Fear that the cancer will come slinking, even roaring, back eventually may loom. And this lingering worry can haunt cancer survivors for years.

In a recent cross-sectional study of 229 adults who survived childhood cancer and had lived cancer-free for decades, researchers found that one third reported experiencing clinically significant elevated fear that their primary cancer would recur or a subsequent malignant neoplasm would develop. Similar anxiety has been documented in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers.

To some degree, every survivor will experience fear and anxiety that their cancer will come back and, at a certain level, that is normal, the study’s senior author Nicole Alberts, PhD, a psychologist, associate professor, and Canada research chair in Behavioural Health Intervention at Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, told this news organization.

Although an oncologist’s words do matter and clinicians may wrestle with the right words for patients in the moment, it can take more than words to quell patients’ fear, she said.

“What we know about that kind of anxiety is that there’s this cycle where reassurance doesn’t really help in the long-term,” Alberts said. In other words, hearing the word cure from their oncologist initially makes people feel better, but the anxiety may eventually come back.

Alberts tries to help patients acknowledge and accept uncertainty while also calming residual or lingering anxiety about a cancer recurrence. Ultimately, Alberts’ goal is to help cancer survivors “find the sweet spot to live again.”

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

It is the best possible news after an advanced melanoma diagnosis: A clean 10-year scan. This, in all likelihood, means the patient is cured and can leave the office free from their annual ‘scanxiety.’ 

But even in the best-case scenarios, oncologists may dodge the word cure, searching for others such as “remission,” “no evidence of disease,” and “most likely cured” to communicate the good news. Using these more open-ended terms can give patients reassurance without providing false hope that the cancer won’t ever return.

The “risk of future recurrence — even when very small — makes oncologists reluctant to use the word cure, fearing it will be interpreted as a promise, and particularly one that might be broken,” Belinda E. Kiely, MD, and Martin R. Stockler, MD, medical oncologists from the University of Sydney in Australia, wrote in a recent editorial.

Is it ever safe for oncologists to use the word cure? Might doing so backfire? Or does a patient’s underlying fear of recurrence transcend the word?

 

A Word’s Heavy Impact

Part of clinicians’ hesitance to use the word cure may stem from a lack of accepted definition for the term in oncology.

For some experts, a cure means patients will have a normal life expectancy not affected by cancer. Being able to confidently tell a patient that “requires very long-term follow-up,” said James Larkin, PhD, a medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a similar definition: “Cure means that there are no traces of your cancer after treatment and the cancer will never come back,” the NCI website says.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, however, defines cure much more narrowly, as “when a person’s cancer has not returned for at least 5 years after treatment.” 

Not having a standard definition of cure in oncology makes it even more challenging for an oncologist to know how to communicate that a cancer very likely won’t return, without overpromising.

Some of the hesitance in framing good news comes from nuances in prognoses that depend on the type and stage of cancer, explained Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

Patients with localized early-stage breast cancer, for instance, have a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100%, and most live 2 decades or longer but, for some, the cancer will return.

“If you talk about early disease, indeed, we cure 80% of breast cancer patients,” Kok said during a press conference at the annual 2024 European Society of Medical Oncology meeting. But sub-dividing breast cancer into tumor type adds complexity. “With triple negative breast cancer, if they relapse, they relapse during the first 2 or 3 years so, at 5 years, the majority are disease free. But that’s different for estrogen receptor positive breast cancer,” in which recurrences can come much later.

In advanced cancers, oncologists may, understandably, be more hesitant to use the word cure. However, ongoing progress in cancer treatments is making the prospect of a cure more likely for some patients.

Take recent findings in melanoma. The landmark CheckMate 067 study in advanced disease revealed that patients receiving the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a median melanoma-specific survival > 10 years and a median overall survival of about 6 years.

The findings from the trial suggest that “many patients may die from causes unrelated to melanoma — or, in essence, they are cured,” outside expert Elisa Funck-Brentano, MD, PhD, from Ambroise-Paré Hospital in Paris, France, explained to Medscape Medical News.

With CheckMate 067, “what we’re talking about here is potential cure of metastatic solid tumors, which in general is something that’s new,” said senior author Larkin. In fact, late relapses after the 2- to 3-year mark in immunotherapy-treated melanoma are extremely rare.

CheckMate 067 “really made people tempted to use the word cure, and I will say some people in our field do,” said Pauline Funchain, MD, a medical oncologist at Stanford Cancer Institute, and associate professor at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “The rest of us really, really want to, but are hesitant because of what we know about melanoma.”

Because the reality is late relapse is still possible.

The cancer can show up decades later and I think, as oncologists, that experience has sort of shaken us,” Funchain told this news organization.

“Oncologists are scarred by those examples,” agreed Evan Hall, MD, a medical oncologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, both in Seattle.

Clinical trials also don’t typically frame patient outcomes in terms of being cured. A recent analysis, which examined the use of “cure” and “hope” in 13,363 oncology articles published between 2000 and 2019 in JAMA Oncology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that both words were used infrequently, especially in primary research articles, and their use decreased significantly over time, even as survival rates in oncology improved. The word cure, for instance, appeared in about 0.1% of sentences in primary research papers published in either journal, though the context of its use was not identified.

Outcomes in cancer clinical trials, which may assess hundreds even thousands of patients, are largely framed in terms of risks and rates of survival — 85% of patients who received treatment X are alive at 5 years or patients receiving treatment Y have a 20% risk for recurrence, for instance.

These risks and rates can’t tell an oncologist whether the patient sitting in front of them can close the cancer chapter of their lives for good.

“I just saw a patient the other day who was 30 years out from their melanoma diagnosis, and they had a recurrence,” Hall recalled. That’s why, “ultimately, it’s a hard thing to tell somebody they’re cured,” he said. “I personally don’t really like using that term.”

While the literature on using the word cure in oncology is limited, one older survey of oncology clinicians supports this view that many feel reluctant to use the term. Of 117 oncology clinicians who responded, 81% said they were “hesitant to tell a patient that they are cured,” and 63% said that they “would never tell a patient that they are cured,” while just 36% said they were comfortable saying the word, with most respondents waiting at least 6-10 years before doing so.

A more recent Italian survey, however, revealed a more favorable view of the word cure in oncology. The survey, which included 224 clinicians and 249 patients, reported that > 90% of cancer physicians, which included surgeons, radiotherapists, and medical oncologists, agreed that it’s possible for a patient to be cured, while about 84% of patients believed this. And > 80% of respondents said using the word cure would be “beneficial” to patients.

Still, even for those hearing the word cure and feeling comforted by an oncologist’s reassurance, it may only provide short-term relief. Fear that the cancer will come slinking, even roaring, back eventually may loom. And this lingering worry can haunt cancer survivors for years.

In a recent cross-sectional study of 229 adults who survived childhood cancer and had lived cancer-free for decades, researchers found that one third reported experiencing clinically significant elevated fear that their primary cancer would recur or a subsequent malignant neoplasm would develop. Similar anxiety has been documented in long-term survivors of adult-onset cancers.

To some degree, every survivor will experience fear and anxiety that their cancer will come back and, at a certain level, that is normal, the study’s senior author Nicole Alberts, PhD, a psychologist, associate professor, and Canada research chair in Behavioural Health Intervention at Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, told this news organization.

Although an oncologist’s words do matter and clinicians may wrestle with the right words for patients in the moment, it can take more than words to quell patients’ fear, she said.

“What we know about that kind of anxiety is that there’s this cycle where reassurance doesn’t really help in the long-term,” Alberts said. In other words, hearing the word cure from their oncologist initially makes people feel better, but the anxiety may eventually come back.

Alberts tries to help patients acknowledge and accept uncertainty while also calming residual or lingering anxiety about a cancer recurrence. Ultimately, Alberts’ goal is to help cancer survivors “find the sweet spot to live again.”

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

TOPLINE:

Adding cetuximab (C) to postoperative radiotherapy (RT) improves disease-free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) in intermediate-risk squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Benefits were specifically observed in human papillomavirus–negative patients, who represented 80.2% of the study participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research showed that adding high-dose cisplatin to postoperative RT in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) improved outcomes in those with positive margins and nodal extracapsular extension of the tumor.
• The new phase 3 randomized trial, which enrolled patients from November 2009 to March 2018 included 577 individuals with resected SCCHN of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx, specifically.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either intensity-modulated RT (60-66 Gy) with weekly C (400 mg/m² loading dose, followed by 250 mg/m² weekly) or RT alone.
• The primary endpoint was OS in randomly assigned eligible patients, with DFS and toxicity as secondary endpoints.
• Analysis included stratified log-rank test for OS and DFS, while toxicity was compared using Fisher’s exact test.

TAKEAWAY:

• OS was not significantly improved with RT plus C vs RT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.60-1.08; P = .0747), though 5-year OS rates were 76.5% vs 68.7%.
• DFS showed significant improvement with combined therapy (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98; P = .0168), with 5-year rates of 71.7% vs 63.6%.
• Grade 3-4 acute toxicity rates were significantly higher with combination therapy (70.3% vs 39.7%; P < .0001), primarily affecting skin and mucosa, though late toxicity rates were similar (33.2% vs 29.0%; P = .3101).
• The benefit of RT plus C was only observed in those patients who were human papillomavirus–negative, which comprised 80.2% of trial participants.

IN PRACTICE:

RT plus C “significantly improved DFS, but not OS, with no increase in long-term toxicity, compared with RT alone for resected, intermediate-risk SCCHN. RT plus C is an appropriate option for carefully selected patients with HPV-negative disease,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Mitchell Machtay, MD, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania. It was published online  in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the researchers, the OS in the control group was higher than predicted, resulting in the trial being underpowered to detect the initial targeted HR. The authors noted that the better-than-expected survival rates could be attributed to improvements in surgical and radiotherapeutic techniques, including mandatory intensity-modulated RT for all patients. Additionally, the researchers pointed out that patient selection may have influenced outcomes, as only 30% of study participants had more than two risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US National Cancer Institute and Eli Lilly Inc. Machtay received grants from Lilly/ImClone, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adding cetuximab (C) to postoperative radiotherapy (RT) improves disease-free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) in intermediate-risk squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Benefits were specifically observed in human papillomavirus–negative patients, who represented 80.2% of the study participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research showed that adding high-dose cisplatin to postoperative RT in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) improved outcomes in those with positive margins and nodal extracapsular extension of the tumor.
• The new phase 3 randomized trial, which enrolled patients from November 2009 to March 2018 included 577 individuals with resected SCCHN of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx, specifically.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either intensity-modulated RT (60-66 Gy) with weekly C (400 mg/m² loading dose, followed by 250 mg/m² weekly) or RT alone.
• The primary endpoint was OS in randomly assigned eligible patients, with DFS and toxicity as secondary endpoints.
• Analysis included stratified log-rank test for OS and DFS, while toxicity was compared using Fisher’s exact test.

TAKEAWAY:

• OS was not significantly improved with RT plus C vs RT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.60-1.08; P = .0747), though 5-year OS rates were 76.5% vs 68.7%.
• DFS showed significant improvement with combined therapy (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98; P = .0168), with 5-year rates of 71.7% vs 63.6%.
• Grade 3-4 acute toxicity rates were significantly higher with combination therapy (70.3% vs 39.7%; P < .0001), primarily affecting skin and mucosa, though late toxicity rates were similar (33.2% vs 29.0%; P = .3101).
• The benefit of RT plus C was only observed in those patients who were human papillomavirus–negative, which comprised 80.2% of trial participants.

IN PRACTICE:

RT plus C “significantly improved DFS, but not OS, with no increase in long-term toxicity, compared with RT alone for resected, intermediate-risk SCCHN. RT plus C is an appropriate option for carefully selected patients with HPV-negative disease,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Mitchell Machtay, MD, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania. It was published online  in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the researchers, the OS in the control group was higher than predicted, resulting in the trial being underpowered to detect the initial targeted HR. The authors noted that the better-than-expected survival rates could be attributed to improvements in surgical and radiotherapeutic techniques, including mandatory intensity-modulated RT for all patients. Additionally, the researchers pointed out that patient selection may have influenced outcomes, as only 30% of study participants had more than two risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US National Cancer Institute and Eli Lilly Inc. Machtay received grants from Lilly/ImClone, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adding cetuximab (C) to postoperative radiotherapy (RT) improves disease-free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) in intermediate-risk squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Benefits were specifically observed in human papillomavirus–negative patients, who represented 80.2% of the study participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research showed that adding high-dose cisplatin to postoperative RT in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) improved outcomes in those with positive margins and nodal extracapsular extension of the tumor.
• The new phase 3 randomized trial, which enrolled patients from November 2009 to March 2018 included 577 individuals with resected SCCHN of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx, specifically.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either intensity-modulated RT (60-66 Gy) with weekly C (400 mg/m² loading dose, followed by 250 mg/m² weekly) or RT alone.
• The primary endpoint was OS in randomly assigned eligible patients, with DFS and toxicity as secondary endpoints.
• Analysis included stratified log-rank test for OS and DFS, while toxicity was compared using Fisher’s exact test.

TAKEAWAY:

• OS was not significantly improved with RT plus C vs RT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.60-1.08; P = .0747), though 5-year OS rates were 76.5% vs 68.7%.
• DFS showed significant improvement with combined therapy (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98; P = .0168), with 5-year rates of 71.7% vs 63.6%.
• Grade 3-4 acute toxicity rates were significantly higher with combination therapy (70.3% vs 39.7%; P < .0001), primarily affecting skin and mucosa, though late toxicity rates were similar (33.2% vs 29.0%; P = .3101).
• The benefit of RT plus C was only observed in those patients who were human papillomavirus–negative, which comprised 80.2% of trial participants.

IN PRACTICE:

RT plus C “significantly improved DFS, but not OS, with no increase in long-term toxicity, compared with RT alone for resected, intermediate-risk SCCHN. RT plus C is an appropriate option for carefully selected patients with HPV-negative disease,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Mitchell Machtay, MD, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania. It was published online  in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the researchers, the OS in the control group was higher than predicted, resulting in the trial being underpowered to detect the initial targeted HR. The authors noted that the better-than-expected survival rates could be attributed to improvements in surgical and radiotherapeutic techniques, including mandatory intensity-modulated RT for all patients. Additionally, the researchers pointed out that patient selection may have influenced outcomes, as only 30% of study participants had more than two risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US National Cancer Institute and Eli Lilly Inc. Machtay received grants from Lilly/ImClone, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cross-sectional survey of patients preparing for their first radiation therapy consultation found that many patients worried about the physical effects of radiation therapy, including pain, memory loss, and nausea, and more than 60% said they were concerned about their ability to perform daily activities. Respondents reported a range of other worries, including the financial cost of treatment, transportation to treatment sessions, and the ability to continue working, as well as misconceptions about radiation therapy, such as concerns about emitting radiation to others.

METHODOLOGY:

• Toxicities from cancer therapies can significantly affect patients’ quality of life and may contribute to their apprehensions before starting a new treatment. Some studies have indicated that patients may have misconceptions about chemotherapy, but less is known about patients’ perceptions of radiation therapy.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients presenting for initial radiation therapy consultation at a single academic institution and analyzed responses from 214 patients (52% men; 51% White individuals) with no prior radiation therapy experience.
• The patients completed a 30-question electronic survey about radiation therapy perceptions and fears or concerns prior to their initial radiation consultation.
• Cancer diagnoses spanned 18 disease sites, with hematologic malignancies (21%), breast cancer (18%), and lung cancer (15%) being the most common.

TAKEAWAY:

• Physical adverse effects were the top concern for patients. These included radiation-induced pain (67%), memory loss (62%), nausea/vomiting (60%), and skin reactions (58%).
• Patients expressed concerns about the impact radiation therapy would have on daily activities, with 62% reporting being moderately or very concerned about their ability to perform daily activities and 37% worried about their ability to continue working. Other concerns included the ability to exercise (over half of respondents), financial cost (36%), and transportation to treatment sessions (26%).
• Misconceptions among patients were also common, with 48% expressing concerns about emitting radiation to others and 45% worrying about excreting radioactive urine or stool.
• Patients had varied levels of prior understanding of radiation therapy. Half of patients reported a complete lack of knowledge about radiation therapy, and 35% said they had read or heard stories about bad adverse effects.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that a survey administered prior to radiation oncology consultation can reveal patients’ primary concerns which could promote a more patient-centered discussion that addresses specific concerns and involves appropriate services to help the patient,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer Novak, MD, MS, Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included response bias and time constraints, which prevented many eligible patients from completing the survey. The single-institution design limits the generalizability of the findings. The survey results also showed a disproportionate focus on physical effects over the social impacts of radiation therapy, which could have limited the comprehensiveness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no specific funding for this work and no relevant competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cross-sectional survey of patients preparing for their first radiation therapy consultation found that many patients worried about the physical effects of radiation therapy, including pain, memory loss, and nausea, and more than 60% said they were concerned about their ability to perform daily activities. Respondents reported a range of other worries, including the financial cost of treatment, transportation to treatment sessions, and the ability to continue working, as well as misconceptions about radiation therapy, such as concerns about emitting radiation to others.

METHODOLOGY:

• Toxicities from cancer therapies can significantly affect patients’ quality of life and may contribute to their apprehensions before starting a new treatment. Some studies have indicated that patients may have misconceptions about chemotherapy, but less is known about patients’ perceptions of radiation therapy.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients presenting for initial radiation therapy consultation at a single academic institution and analyzed responses from 214 patients (52% men; 51% White individuals) with no prior radiation therapy experience.
• The patients completed a 30-question electronic survey about radiation therapy perceptions and fears or concerns prior to their initial radiation consultation.
• Cancer diagnoses spanned 18 disease sites, with hematologic malignancies (21%), breast cancer (18%), and lung cancer (15%) being the most common.

TAKEAWAY:

• Physical adverse effects were the top concern for patients. These included radiation-induced pain (67%), memory loss (62%), nausea/vomiting (60%), and skin reactions (58%).
• Patients expressed concerns about the impact radiation therapy would have on daily activities, with 62% reporting being moderately or very concerned about their ability to perform daily activities and 37% worried about their ability to continue working. Other concerns included the ability to exercise (over half of respondents), financial cost (36%), and transportation to treatment sessions (26%).
• Misconceptions among patients were also common, with 48% expressing concerns about emitting radiation to others and 45% worrying about excreting radioactive urine or stool.
• Patients had varied levels of prior understanding of radiation therapy. Half of patients reported a complete lack of knowledge about radiation therapy, and 35% said they had read or heard stories about bad adverse effects.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that a survey administered prior to radiation oncology consultation can reveal patients’ primary concerns which could promote a more patient-centered discussion that addresses specific concerns and involves appropriate services to help the patient,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer Novak, MD, MS, Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included response bias and time constraints, which prevented many eligible patients from completing the survey. The single-institution design limits the generalizability of the findings. The survey results also showed a disproportionate focus on physical effects over the social impacts of radiation therapy, which could have limited the comprehensiveness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no specific funding for this work and no relevant competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cross-sectional survey of patients preparing for their first radiation therapy consultation found that many patients worried about the physical effects of radiation therapy, including pain, memory loss, and nausea, and more than 60% said they were concerned about their ability to perform daily activities. Respondents reported a range of other worries, including the financial cost of treatment, transportation to treatment sessions, and the ability to continue working, as well as misconceptions about radiation therapy, such as concerns about emitting radiation to others.

METHODOLOGY:

• Toxicities from cancer therapies can significantly affect patients’ quality of life and may contribute to their apprehensions before starting a new treatment. Some studies have indicated that patients may have misconceptions about chemotherapy, but less is known about patients’ perceptions of radiation therapy.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients presenting for initial radiation therapy consultation at a single academic institution and analyzed responses from 214 patients (52% men; 51% White individuals) with no prior radiation therapy experience.
• The patients completed a 30-question electronic survey about radiation therapy perceptions and fears or concerns prior to their initial radiation consultation.
• Cancer diagnoses spanned 18 disease sites, with hematologic malignancies (21%), breast cancer (18%), and lung cancer (15%) being the most common.

TAKEAWAY:

• Physical adverse effects were the top concern for patients. These included radiation-induced pain (67%), memory loss (62%), nausea/vomiting (60%), and skin reactions (58%).
• Patients expressed concerns about the impact radiation therapy would have on daily activities, with 62% reporting being moderately or very concerned about their ability to perform daily activities and 37% worried about their ability to continue working. Other concerns included the ability to exercise (over half of respondents), financial cost (36%), and transportation to treatment sessions (26%).
• Misconceptions among patients were also common, with 48% expressing concerns about emitting radiation to others and 45% worrying about excreting radioactive urine or stool.
• Patients had varied levels of prior understanding of radiation therapy. Half of patients reported a complete lack of knowledge about radiation therapy, and 35% said they had read or heard stories about bad adverse effects.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that a survey administered prior to radiation oncology consultation can reveal patients’ primary concerns which could promote a more patient-centered discussion that addresses specific concerns and involves appropriate services to help the patient,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer Novak, MD, MS, Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included response bias and time constraints, which prevented many eligible patients from completing the survey. The single-institution design limits the generalizability of the findings. The survey results also showed a disproportionate focus on physical effects over the social impacts of radiation therapy, which could have limited the comprehensiveness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no specific funding for this work and no relevant competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.