Patient & Survivor Care

Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act was associated with a significant reduction in breast, colon, and lung cancer mortality, likely because of earlier stage of cancer diagnosis, according to a review published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers reviewed data on 523,802 patients in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with cancer from 2012 through 2015. Slightly more than half of patients (55.2%) lived in Medicaid expansion states.

After expansion, mortality significantly decreased in expansion states (hazard ratio, 0.98; P  = .008) but not in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.01; P  = .43). The difference was significant in a difference-in-difference analysis (HR, 1.03; P = .01).

Across 69,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Medicaid expansion states, the 2% decrease in the hazard of death would translate to 1,384 lives saved annually.

The benefit was primarily observed in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. For patients with stage I-III cancer, the risk of death was increased in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P < .001) and unchanged in expansion states (HR, 0.99; P = .64). Mortality significantly improved in expansion states vs. nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P = .003).

For patients with stage IV cancer, both expansion and nonexpansion states had improvements in mortality, but the differences were not significant.

“Earlier stage at diagnosis appears to explain the mortality improvement,” wrote study author Miranda Lam, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
 

Clinical benefits, ‘no economic downside’

Under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, states have the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. As of March 2020, 36 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, with more than 20 million residents obtaining coverage.

Previous studies have associated Medicaid expansion with fewer patients being uninsured, increased cancer screening, and earlier stage of diagnosis, as well as reduced racial disparities in access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery and increased rates of cancer surgery among low-income patients.

“This study adds to an increasingly large body of research finding that Medicaid expansion has improved our ability to fight cancer,” said Coleman Drake, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in this study.

“Obtaining health insurance through Medicaid allows patients to receive recommended preventive cancer screenings, which explains the increase in early-stage diagnosis rates. Detecting cancer early is critical for successful cancer treatment,” Dr. Drake noted.

“It is hard to overstate the positive effects of Medicaid expansion on health outcomes. At the same time, concerns that Medicaid expansion would be costly to state governments’ budgets have not been realized. In short, Medicaid expansion yields many benefits and has no economic downside for state policymakers. Clinical and economic evidence make an overwhelming case for states to expand Medicaid,” Dr. Drake said.
 

Significant difference for lung cancer

Most patients in this study were women (73.6%), and the patients’ mean age was 54.8 years (range, 40-64 years). Patients had newly diagnosed breast cancer (52.2%), colorectal cancer (21.3%), and lung cancer (26.5%).

The benefits of Medicaid expansion persisted after adjustment for education, income, insurance, and race.

The lower mortality in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states was similar across all three cancer types. However, in stratified analyses, the difference was significant only for lung cancer (P = .03).

“Lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than breast and colorectal cancer, and with longer follow-up, it is possible that the lower mortality rates seen for breast and colorectal cancer may also become significant,” the authors wrote.

This research was funded by Harvard Catalyst, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Drake had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lam MB et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024366.

Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act was associated with a significant reduction in breast, colon, and lung cancer mortality, likely because of earlier stage of cancer diagnosis, according to a review published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers reviewed data on 523,802 patients in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with cancer from 2012 through 2015. Slightly more than half of patients (55.2%) lived in Medicaid expansion states.

After expansion, mortality significantly decreased in expansion states (hazard ratio, 0.98; P  = .008) but not in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.01; P  = .43). The difference was significant in a difference-in-difference analysis (HR, 1.03; P = .01).

Across 69,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Medicaid expansion states, the 2% decrease in the hazard of death would translate to 1,384 lives saved annually.

The benefit was primarily observed in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. For patients with stage I-III cancer, the risk of death was increased in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P < .001) and unchanged in expansion states (HR, 0.99; P = .64). Mortality significantly improved in expansion states vs. nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P = .003).

For patients with stage IV cancer, both expansion and nonexpansion states had improvements in mortality, but the differences were not significant.

“Earlier stage at diagnosis appears to explain the mortality improvement,” wrote study author Miranda Lam, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
 

Clinical benefits, ‘no economic downside’

Under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, states have the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. As of March 2020, 36 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, with more than 20 million residents obtaining coverage.

Previous studies have associated Medicaid expansion with fewer patients being uninsured, increased cancer screening, and earlier stage of diagnosis, as well as reduced racial disparities in access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery and increased rates of cancer surgery among low-income patients.

“This study adds to an increasingly large body of research finding that Medicaid expansion has improved our ability to fight cancer,” said Coleman Drake, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in this study.

“Obtaining health insurance through Medicaid allows patients to receive recommended preventive cancer screenings, which explains the increase in early-stage diagnosis rates. Detecting cancer early is critical for successful cancer treatment,” Dr. Drake noted.

“It is hard to overstate the positive effects of Medicaid expansion on health outcomes. At the same time, concerns that Medicaid expansion would be costly to state governments’ budgets have not been realized. In short, Medicaid expansion yields many benefits and has no economic downside for state policymakers. Clinical and economic evidence make an overwhelming case for states to expand Medicaid,” Dr. Drake said.
 

Significant difference for lung cancer

Most patients in this study were women (73.6%), and the patients’ mean age was 54.8 years (range, 40-64 years). Patients had newly diagnosed breast cancer (52.2%), colorectal cancer (21.3%), and lung cancer (26.5%).

The benefits of Medicaid expansion persisted after adjustment for education, income, insurance, and race.

The lower mortality in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states was similar across all three cancer types. However, in stratified analyses, the difference was significant only for lung cancer (P = .03).

“Lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than breast and colorectal cancer, and with longer follow-up, it is possible that the lower mortality rates seen for breast and colorectal cancer may also become significant,” the authors wrote.

This research was funded by Harvard Catalyst, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Drake had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lam MB et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024366.

Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act was associated with a significant reduction in breast, colon, and lung cancer mortality, likely because of earlier stage of cancer diagnosis, according to a review published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers reviewed data on 523,802 patients in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with cancer from 2012 through 2015. Slightly more than half of patients (55.2%) lived in Medicaid expansion states.

After expansion, mortality significantly decreased in expansion states (hazard ratio, 0.98; P  = .008) but not in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.01; P  = .43). The difference was significant in a difference-in-difference analysis (HR, 1.03; P = .01).

Across 69,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Medicaid expansion states, the 2% decrease in the hazard of death would translate to 1,384 lives saved annually.

The benefit was primarily observed in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. For patients with stage I-III cancer, the risk of death was increased in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P < .001) and unchanged in expansion states (HR, 0.99; P = .64). Mortality significantly improved in expansion states vs. nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P = .003).

For patients with stage IV cancer, both expansion and nonexpansion states had improvements in mortality, but the differences were not significant.

“Earlier stage at diagnosis appears to explain the mortality improvement,” wrote study author Miranda Lam, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
 

Clinical benefits, ‘no economic downside’

Under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, states have the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. As of March 2020, 36 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, with more than 20 million residents obtaining coverage.

Previous studies have associated Medicaid expansion with fewer patients being uninsured, increased cancer screening, and earlier stage of diagnosis, as well as reduced racial disparities in access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery and increased rates of cancer surgery among low-income patients.

“This study adds to an increasingly large body of research finding that Medicaid expansion has improved our ability to fight cancer,” said Coleman Drake, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in this study.

“Obtaining health insurance through Medicaid allows patients to receive recommended preventive cancer screenings, which explains the increase in early-stage diagnosis rates. Detecting cancer early is critical for successful cancer treatment,” Dr. Drake noted.

“It is hard to overstate the positive effects of Medicaid expansion on health outcomes. At the same time, concerns that Medicaid expansion would be costly to state governments’ budgets have not been realized. In short, Medicaid expansion yields many benefits and has no economic downside for state policymakers. Clinical and economic evidence make an overwhelming case for states to expand Medicaid,” Dr. Drake said.
 

Significant difference for lung cancer

Most patients in this study were women (73.6%), and the patients’ mean age was 54.8 years (range, 40-64 years). Patients had newly diagnosed breast cancer (52.2%), colorectal cancer (21.3%), and lung cancer (26.5%).

The benefits of Medicaid expansion persisted after adjustment for education, income, insurance, and race.

The lower mortality in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states was similar across all three cancer types. However, in stratified analyses, the difference was significant only for lung cancer (P = .03).

“Lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than breast and colorectal cancer, and with longer follow-up, it is possible that the lower mortality rates seen for breast and colorectal cancer may also become significant,” the authors wrote.

This research was funded by Harvard Catalyst, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Drake had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lam MB et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024366.

A small percentage of patients with cancer show exceptional responses to treatment and survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors, despite having advanced disease.

An ongoing research project is studying why some patients have exceptional responses. The researchers have found particular molecular features in the tumors of about a quarter of these patients. In some cases, there are multiple rare genetic changes in the tumor genome. In other cases, the tumors are infiltrated with certain types of immune cells.

The findings were published online November 19 in Cancer Cell. They come from a genomic analysis of tumor biopsy specimens from 111 patients who were identified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Exceptional Responders Initiative, a national project launched in 2014.

An exceptional responder is defined as an individual who achieves a partial or complete response to a treatment that would be effective in fewer than 10% of similar patients. For exceptional response, the duration of response is at least three times longer than the usual median response time.

In this study of 111 such patients, about one quarter (24%, n = 26 patients) were found to have tumors in which there were molecular features that could potentially explain exceptional responses to treatment.

“We won’t be able to identify, in every patient, which particular drugs will be beneficial,” said Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, director of the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics, who co-led the study. “We are nowhere near that. But what it does say is that we have identified particular mutations, some of which we knew about in some types of cancer but can also occur less commonly in other cancer types.”

Staudt noted that these mutations can “illuminate” the path that the cancer will take — and potentially can be used to predict whether the cancer will be aggressive and will require treatment or could be managed with surveillance. This is why this research can be useful in the short term, he said.

“In the longer term, this is the kind of research that inspires future work,” he told Medscape Medical News. “That would encompass clinical trials involving drugs that target some of the pathways we found to be genetically inactivated in some of these responders.”

These results support the use of genetic testing in routine clinical care, he said.

Earlier this year, the NCI team published the results of a pilot study that affirmed the feasibility of this approach. Of the more than 100 cases that were analyzed, six were identified as involving potentially clinically actionable germline mutations.
 

‘Curiosity drove the research’

“We had these wonderful and gratifying experiences with our patients, so we were immediately curious how that happened, so it was pretty much that curiosity that drove a lot of this work,” said Staudt.

In the current study, Staudt and colleagues used multiple genomic methodologies to detect mutations, copy number changes, aberrant methylation, outlier gene expression, and the cellular makeup of the tumor microenvironment.

The hypothesized mechanisms for exceptional responses were broadly divided into the following four categories: DNA damage response (n = 15), intracellular signaling pathway (n = 9), prognostic genetics (n = 9), and immunologic engagement (n = 16). For many patients, two or more of these mechanisms were involved.

The authors note that the “predominance of plausible DNA damage response mechanisms parallels the frequent use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in routine cancer treatment reflected in this cohort.”

Twenty-six patients were identified as exceptional responders. Among these patients, a variety of cancer types was represented: brain (8); gastrointestinal tract (6); breast (4); cholangiocarcinoma (2); lung (2); pancreas, endometrium, ovarian, and bladder (1 each). Many of these patients (65%, n = 17) were treated with chemotherapy that included DNA-damaging agents. For more than half (54%, n = 14), targeted therapies were used, and some patients received both.

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

• One patient with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was treated sequentially with surgery, localized carmustine, and radiotherapy. When the cancer recurred, temozolomide was administered. This induced a complete response that has lasted for more than a decade.
• A patient with metastatic colon adenocarcinoma has had an ongoing and nearly complete response that has lasted 45 months (last follow-up) after receiving temozolomide in combination with the investigational drug TRC102 (methoxyamine, under development by Tracon) in a phase 1 clinical trial. TRC102 is an inhibitor of the DNA base excision repair pathway, which is a pathway that causes resistance to alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics.
• A patient with metastatic, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer received trastuzumab because of a high-level ERBB2 amplification, together with anastrozole. This resulted in an ongoing 2.4-year partial response.
• Although the patient was clinically HER2 positive, her tumor had exceedingly low expression of ERBB2 mRNA. Molecular profiling had classified the tumor as of the basal-like subtype rather than the HER2-enriched subtype. This meant that it was unlikely that trastuzumab contributed to the exceptional response, the authors note. Because the patient was estrogen-receptor positive, she received anastrozole, an inhibitor of aromatase (CYP19A), which converts testosterone into estradiol.
• A patient who had a gastrointestinal stromal tumor with a deletion of KIT exon 11 experienced relapse after an initial response to imatinib, which targets KIT and other tyrosine kinases, but then achieved a complete response with sunitinib. Gene expression profiling revealed high expression not only of KIT but also of genes encoding several tyrosine kinases that are targeted by sunitinib (KDR, FLT1, and FLT3). This may have accounted for the patient’s response.

Favorable genomic characteristics

The authors defined a “prognostic genetics” category of tumors, characterized by genetic lesions that are now known to be associated with a favorable prognosis but that were not addressed through routine care that these patients received when they were first diagnosed. Although the patients experienced relapse after first-line treatment, their exceptional survival after salvage therapy could be linked to favorable genomic characteristics.

For example, several of the patients with high-grade GBMs and astrocytomas had genetic lesions that are generally more common in low-grade glioma and that have been associated with an indolent clinical course following standard therapy.

The authors also assessed immune response. Examining immune cell infiltration in responder tumors in comparison with control cases, the team found that signatures of B cells and activated (CD56dim) natural killer cells were higher in exceptional-responder tumors.

In one patient with metastatic urothelial cancer who experienced disease progression after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, treatment with nivolumab produced a complete response that lasted 7 months. Such an outcome occurs in only about 3% of bladder cancer patients. The tumor expressed high mRNA levels of PDCD1, which encodes the nivolumab target PD-1, and CD274, which encodes the PD-1 ligand PD-L1. There was also a high level of amplification of IFNG, which encodes interferon-gamma, a cytokine that has been linked to favorable response to immune checkpoint blockade.
 

Moving to precision medicine

“It is very valuable to be tested up front and again when the disease progresses, because there may have been some genetic changes, and this may change the treatment,” said co–lead author S. Percy Ivy, MD, of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis.

“The goal of this study was to understand what was unique about these patients and their genetic makeup that led them to be classified as exceptional responders, and hopefully we will be able to tease that out,” she added.

“As researchers, we have a lot to learn from these patients, and they have a lot to teach us,” she added. “In the future, they will help us as we move closer to the goal of delivering precision oncology to all of our patients. We’re not there yet, but every time we study more deeply and learn more, we are able to provide better care.”

To encourage participation in this effort by investigators around the world, the NCI team and their colleagues have made their molecular profiling results and clinical information publicly available in the NCI Genomic Data Commons.

The study was supported by the NCI’s Intramural Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Cancer Research, and the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics. Staudt and Ivy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small percentage of patients with cancer show exceptional responses to treatment and survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors, despite having advanced disease.

An ongoing research project is studying why some patients have exceptional responses. The researchers have found particular molecular features in the tumors of about a quarter of these patients. In some cases, there are multiple rare genetic changes in the tumor genome. In other cases, the tumors are infiltrated with certain types of immune cells.

The findings were published online November 19 in Cancer Cell. They come from a genomic analysis of tumor biopsy specimens from 111 patients who were identified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Exceptional Responders Initiative, a national project launched in 2014.

An exceptional responder is defined as an individual who achieves a partial or complete response to a treatment that would be effective in fewer than 10% of similar patients. For exceptional response, the duration of response is at least three times longer than the usual median response time.

In this study of 111 such patients, about one quarter (24%, n = 26 patients) were found to have tumors in which there were molecular features that could potentially explain exceptional responses to treatment.

“We won’t be able to identify, in every patient, which particular drugs will be beneficial,” said Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, director of the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics, who co-led the study. “We are nowhere near that. But what it does say is that we have identified particular mutations, some of which we knew about in some types of cancer but can also occur less commonly in other cancer types.”

Staudt noted that these mutations can “illuminate” the path that the cancer will take — and potentially can be used to predict whether the cancer will be aggressive and will require treatment or could be managed with surveillance. This is why this research can be useful in the short term, he said.

“In the longer term, this is the kind of research that inspires future work,” he told Medscape Medical News. “That would encompass clinical trials involving drugs that target some of the pathways we found to be genetically inactivated in some of these responders.”

These results support the use of genetic testing in routine clinical care, he said.

Earlier this year, the NCI team published the results of a pilot study that affirmed the feasibility of this approach. Of the more than 100 cases that were analyzed, six were identified as involving potentially clinically actionable germline mutations.
 

‘Curiosity drove the research’

“We had these wonderful and gratifying experiences with our patients, so we were immediately curious how that happened, so it was pretty much that curiosity that drove a lot of this work,” said Staudt.

In the current study, Staudt and colleagues used multiple genomic methodologies to detect mutations, copy number changes, aberrant methylation, outlier gene expression, and the cellular makeup of the tumor microenvironment.

The hypothesized mechanisms for exceptional responses were broadly divided into the following four categories: DNA damage response (n = 15), intracellular signaling pathway (n = 9), prognostic genetics (n = 9), and immunologic engagement (n = 16). For many patients, two or more of these mechanisms were involved.

The authors note that the “predominance of plausible DNA damage response mechanisms parallels the frequent use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in routine cancer treatment reflected in this cohort.”

Twenty-six patients were identified as exceptional responders. Among these patients, a variety of cancer types was represented: brain (8); gastrointestinal tract (6); breast (4); cholangiocarcinoma (2); lung (2); pancreas, endometrium, ovarian, and bladder (1 each). Many of these patients (65%, n = 17) were treated with chemotherapy that included DNA-damaging agents. For more than half (54%, n = 14), targeted therapies were used, and some patients received both.

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

• One patient with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was treated sequentially with surgery, localized carmustine, and radiotherapy. When the cancer recurred, temozolomide was administered. This induced a complete response that has lasted for more than a decade.
• A patient with metastatic colon adenocarcinoma has had an ongoing and nearly complete response that has lasted 45 months (last follow-up) after receiving temozolomide in combination with the investigational drug TRC102 (methoxyamine, under development by Tracon) in a phase 1 clinical trial. TRC102 is an inhibitor of the DNA base excision repair pathway, which is a pathway that causes resistance to alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics.
• A patient with metastatic, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer received trastuzumab because of a high-level ERBB2 amplification, together with anastrozole. This resulted in an ongoing 2.4-year partial response.
• Although the patient was clinically HER2 positive, her tumor had exceedingly low expression of ERBB2 mRNA. Molecular profiling had classified the tumor as of the basal-like subtype rather than the HER2-enriched subtype. This meant that it was unlikely that trastuzumab contributed to the exceptional response, the authors note. Because the patient was estrogen-receptor positive, she received anastrozole, an inhibitor of aromatase (CYP19A), which converts testosterone into estradiol.
• A patient who had a gastrointestinal stromal tumor with a deletion of KIT exon 11 experienced relapse after an initial response to imatinib, which targets KIT and other tyrosine kinases, but then achieved a complete response with sunitinib. Gene expression profiling revealed high expression not only of KIT but also of genes encoding several tyrosine kinases that are targeted by sunitinib (KDR, FLT1, and FLT3). This may have accounted for the patient’s response.

Favorable genomic characteristics

The authors defined a “prognostic genetics” category of tumors, characterized by genetic lesions that are now known to be associated with a favorable prognosis but that were not addressed through routine care that these patients received when they were first diagnosed. Although the patients experienced relapse after first-line treatment, their exceptional survival after salvage therapy could be linked to favorable genomic characteristics.

For example, several of the patients with high-grade GBMs and astrocytomas had genetic lesions that are generally more common in low-grade glioma and that have been associated with an indolent clinical course following standard therapy.

The authors also assessed immune response. Examining immune cell infiltration in responder tumors in comparison with control cases, the team found that signatures of B cells and activated (CD56dim) natural killer cells were higher in exceptional-responder tumors.

In one patient with metastatic urothelial cancer who experienced disease progression after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, treatment with nivolumab produced a complete response that lasted 7 months. Such an outcome occurs in only about 3% of bladder cancer patients. The tumor expressed high mRNA levels of PDCD1, which encodes the nivolumab target PD-1, and CD274, which encodes the PD-1 ligand PD-L1. There was also a high level of amplification of IFNG, which encodes interferon-gamma, a cytokine that has been linked to favorable response to immune checkpoint blockade.
 

Moving to precision medicine

“It is very valuable to be tested up front and again when the disease progresses, because there may have been some genetic changes, and this may change the treatment,” said co–lead author S. Percy Ivy, MD, of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis.

“The goal of this study was to understand what was unique about these patients and their genetic makeup that led them to be classified as exceptional responders, and hopefully we will be able to tease that out,” she added.

“As researchers, we have a lot to learn from these patients, and they have a lot to teach us,” she added. “In the future, they will help us as we move closer to the goal of delivering precision oncology to all of our patients. We’re not there yet, but every time we study more deeply and learn more, we are able to provide better care.”

To encourage participation in this effort by investigators around the world, the NCI team and their colleagues have made their molecular profiling results and clinical information publicly available in the NCI Genomic Data Commons.

The study was supported by the NCI’s Intramural Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Cancer Research, and the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics. Staudt and Ivy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small percentage of patients with cancer show exceptional responses to treatment and survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors, despite having advanced disease.

An ongoing research project is studying why some patients have exceptional responses. The researchers have found particular molecular features in the tumors of about a quarter of these patients. In some cases, there are multiple rare genetic changes in the tumor genome. In other cases, the tumors are infiltrated with certain types of immune cells.

The findings were published online November 19 in Cancer Cell. They come from a genomic analysis of tumor biopsy specimens from 111 patients who were identified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Exceptional Responders Initiative, a national project launched in 2014.

An exceptional responder is defined as an individual who achieves a partial or complete response to a treatment that would be effective in fewer than 10% of similar patients. For exceptional response, the duration of response is at least three times longer than the usual median response time.

In this study of 111 such patients, about one quarter (24%, n = 26 patients) were found to have tumors in which there were molecular features that could potentially explain exceptional responses to treatment.

“We won’t be able to identify, in every patient, which particular drugs will be beneficial,” said Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, director of the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics, who co-led the study. “We are nowhere near that. But what it does say is that we have identified particular mutations, some of which we knew about in some types of cancer but can also occur less commonly in other cancer types.”

Staudt noted that these mutations can “illuminate” the path that the cancer will take — and potentially can be used to predict whether the cancer will be aggressive and will require treatment or could be managed with surveillance. This is why this research can be useful in the short term, he said.

“In the longer term, this is the kind of research that inspires future work,” he told Medscape Medical News. “That would encompass clinical trials involving drugs that target some of the pathways we found to be genetically inactivated in some of these responders.”

These results support the use of genetic testing in routine clinical care, he said.

Earlier this year, the NCI team published the results of a pilot study that affirmed the feasibility of this approach. Of the more than 100 cases that were analyzed, six were identified as involving potentially clinically actionable germline mutations.
 

‘Curiosity drove the research’

“We had these wonderful and gratifying experiences with our patients, so we were immediately curious how that happened, so it was pretty much that curiosity that drove a lot of this work,” said Staudt.

In the current study, Staudt and colleagues used multiple genomic methodologies to detect mutations, copy number changes, aberrant methylation, outlier gene expression, and the cellular makeup of the tumor microenvironment.

The hypothesized mechanisms for exceptional responses were broadly divided into the following four categories: DNA damage response (n = 15), intracellular signaling pathway (n = 9), prognostic genetics (n = 9), and immunologic engagement (n = 16). For many patients, two or more of these mechanisms were involved.

The authors note that the “predominance of plausible DNA damage response mechanisms parallels the frequent use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in routine cancer treatment reflected in this cohort.”

Twenty-six patients were identified as exceptional responders. Among these patients, a variety of cancer types was represented: brain (8); gastrointestinal tract (6); breast (4); cholangiocarcinoma (2); lung (2); pancreas, endometrium, ovarian, and bladder (1 each). Many of these patients (65%, n = 17) were treated with chemotherapy that included DNA-damaging agents. For more than half (54%, n = 14), targeted therapies were used, and some patients received both.

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

• One patient with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was treated sequentially with surgery, localized carmustine, and radiotherapy. When the cancer recurred, temozolomide was administered. This induced a complete response that has lasted for more than a decade.
• A patient with metastatic colon adenocarcinoma has had an ongoing and nearly complete response that has lasted 45 months (last follow-up) after receiving temozolomide in combination with the investigational drug TRC102 (methoxyamine, under development by Tracon) in a phase 1 clinical trial. TRC102 is an inhibitor of the DNA base excision repair pathway, which is a pathway that causes resistance to alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics.
• A patient with metastatic, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer received trastuzumab because of a high-level ERBB2 amplification, together with anastrozole. This resulted in an ongoing 2.4-year partial response.
• Although the patient was clinically HER2 positive, her tumor had exceedingly low expression of ERBB2 mRNA. Molecular profiling had classified the tumor as of the basal-like subtype rather than the HER2-enriched subtype. This meant that it was unlikely that trastuzumab contributed to the exceptional response, the authors note. Because the patient was estrogen-receptor positive, she received anastrozole, an inhibitor of aromatase (CYP19A), which converts testosterone into estradiol.
• A patient who had a gastrointestinal stromal tumor with a deletion of KIT exon 11 experienced relapse after an initial response to imatinib, which targets KIT and other tyrosine kinases, but then achieved a complete response with sunitinib. Gene expression profiling revealed high expression not only of KIT but also of genes encoding several tyrosine kinases that are targeted by sunitinib (KDR, FLT1, and FLT3). This may have accounted for the patient’s response.

Favorable genomic characteristics

The authors defined a “prognostic genetics” category of tumors, characterized by genetic lesions that are now known to be associated with a favorable prognosis but that were not addressed through routine care that these patients received when they were first diagnosed. Although the patients experienced relapse after first-line treatment, their exceptional survival after salvage therapy could be linked to favorable genomic characteristics.

For example, several of the patients with high-grade GBMs and astrocytomas had genetic lesions that are generally more common in low-grade glioma and that have been associated with an indolent clinical course following standard therapy.

The authors also assessed immune response. Examining immune cell infiltration in responder tumors in comparison with control cases, the team found that signatures of B cells and activated (CD56dim) natural killer cells were higher in exceptional-responder tumors.

In one patient with metastatic urothelial cancer who experienced disease progression after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, treatment with nivolumab produced a complete response that lasted 7 months. Such an outcome occurs in only about 3% of bladder cancer patients. The tumor expressed high mRNA levels of PDCD1, which encodes the nivolumab target PD-1, and CD274, which encodes the PD-1 ligand PD-L1. There was also a high level of amplification of IFNG, which encodes interferon-gamma, a cytokine that has been linked to favorable response to immune checkpoint blockade.
 

Moving to precision medicine

“It is very valuable to be tested up front and again when the disease progresses, because there may have been some genetic changes, and this may change the treatment,” said co–lead author S. Percy Ivy, MD, of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis.

“The goal of this study was to understand what was unique about these patients and their genetic makeup that led them to be classified as exceptional responders, and hopefully we will be able to tease that out,” she added.

“As researchers, we have a lot to learn from these patients, and they have a lot to teach us,” she added. “In the future, they will help us as we move closer to the goal of delivering precision oncology to all of our patients. We’re not there yet, but every time we study more deeply and learn more, we are able to provide better care.”

To encourage participation in this effort by investigators around the world, the NCI team and their colleagues have made their molecular profiling results and clinical information publicly available in the NCI Genomic Data Commons.

The study was supported by the NCI’s Intramural Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Cancer Research, and the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics. Staudt and Ivy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.

“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.

Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.

The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.

The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.

The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.

The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).

“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).

Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.

Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).

Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.

“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
 

VENTED and PRE-VENT trials

These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.

“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.

The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.

“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.

Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”

In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
 

Reasonable question

Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.

He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.

“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”

Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.

The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.

“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.

Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.

Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.

“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.

“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.

Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.

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

The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.

“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.

Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.

The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.

The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.

The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.

The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).

“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).

Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.

Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).

Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.

“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
 

VENTED and PRE-VENT trials

These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.

“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.

The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.

“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.

Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”

In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
 

Reasonable question

Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.

He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.

“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”

Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.

The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.

“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.

Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.

Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.

“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.

“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.

Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.

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

The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.

“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.

Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.

The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.

The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.

The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.

The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).

“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).

Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.

Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).

Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.

“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
 

VENTED and PRE-VENT trials

These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.

“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.

The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.

“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.

Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”

In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
 

Reasonable question

Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.

He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.

“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”

Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.

The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.

“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.

Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.

Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.

“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.

“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.

Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.

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

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new, large study has confirmed that different types of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and has provided additional information on factors associated with that increased risk.

The study was published online on October 28 in The BMJ.

“The study confirms increased risk of breast cancer in patients taking HRT but shows that the magnitude of risk depends on a number of factors,” first author Yana Vinogradova, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Vinogradova is a medical statistician at the University of Nottingham (England).

The study also suggests the risk may be lower than was estimated in a large meta-analysis of 24 trials that was published in 2019 in The Lancet. In that study, researchers suggested the risk for breast cancer with HRT was higher and persisted longer than had been thought.

This conclusion from the meta-analysis was widely reported in the lay press and led to the UK Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issuing a safety alert for HRT regarding breast cancer. Experts in the field questioned the alert and said it caused undue anxiety. The European Medicines Agency also issued a safety alert because of the study.

This new study was begun before publication of the meta-analysis. Although the results are broadly similar in suggesting increased risk for breast cancer with HRT use, findings from the new study suggest the risk is lower than had been estimated in the meta-analysis and that the risk diminishes more rapidly after stopping HRT than was suggested by the meta-analysis.

“The publicity surrounding publication of the meta-analysis highlighted unexpectedly high risks and led to a heightened level of concern in some quarters,” Dr. Vinogradova commented. “Our study, based on general population data, has not confirmed any such findings. In general, it showed lower levels of risk and clarified the variability of magnitude within them.”

Dr. Vinogradova said the discrepancy could be related to the fact that the studies were designed differently. The meta-analysis relied on results from 24 studies that were conducted around the world at different periods and included women of different ages and backgrounds. The studies in the meta-analysis used different methods, including questionnaires that relied on women’s memories and therefore could have been biased, she said.

In contrast, the new study analyzed EMR data collected prospectively by general practices in the United Kingdom. The data came from the QResearch and from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, the two largest primary care databases in the United Kingdom, which were linked to hospital, mortality, and cancer registries.

Because this study used a “consistent design” and “consistent data sources,” these new results “are likely to be more accurate and reliable for assessing risks among HRT users,” Dr. Vinogradova commented.

This study used an observational design, so it cannot prove that HRT causes breast cancer. These results may better represent women in the general U.K. population, compared with the earlier meta-analysis, she added.

Commenting on the new study, Michael Jones, PhD, senior staff scientist in genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, also emphasized that it was large and its data came from general practitioner medical records, “so the strong statistical associations are unlikely to be due to chance.

“The results of this study generally confirm what has been seen before and is well established – that the use of combined estrogen plus progestogen HRT is associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and this risk increases with duration of use. But reassuringly, after stopping HRT, the raised risk of breast cancer mostly returns to that seen in nonusers of HRT,” he said.

“It’s important to note that no one study should be considered in isolation,” he added. “Even though some risks were found to be slightly smaller than those reported in another meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence recently published in 2019, women considering use of HRT should still follow advice given to them by their [general practitioners].”
 

Study details

In the study, researchers evaluated all types of HRT commonly prescribed in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, including topical estrogen, vaginal pessaries, and creams. They grouped HRT use by recent (within the past 5 years) and past (5 or more years ago) and HRT duration as short term (less than 5 years) and long term (5 years or longer). Results were adjusted for a range of factors that could affect breast cancer risk, including lifestyle, smoking, alcohol consumption, other medical conditions, family history, and use of other prescribed drugs.

The analysis included 98,611 women aged 50-79 years who were first diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2019. These women were matched by age and general practice to 457,498 women who were not diagnosed with breast cancer over these years. HRT use was reported in 34% (33,703) of women with breast cancer and in 31% (134,391) of women without breast cancer.

Overall, the risk for breast cancer was increased with use of most HRT drugs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence, 1.19-1.23), compared with not using HRT drugs. The highest risk was tied to combined estrogen/progestogen HRT (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). The lowest risk was tied to estrogen-only HRT (adjusted OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10). Estrogen cream and vaginal estrogen were not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

In general, breast cancer risk was higher among recent HRT users and those receiving long-term therapy. HRT-associated breast cancer risk increased with age and declined after discontinuing treatment. Therapy of less than 1 year was not associated with increased breast cancer risk.

Women who had recently been receiving long-term combined estrogen/progestogen HRT had a 79% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.73-1.85), compared with never-users. Among recent long-term users of combined HRT, breast cancer risk was highest for norethisterone (adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.79-1.99) and lowest for dydrogesterone (adjusted OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48). Women who had recently been receiving long-term estrogen-only HRT had a 15% increased risk for breast cancer compared to never-users (adjusted OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21).

Among women who discontinued HRT 5 or more years ago, risk for breast cancer was no longer increased for long-term estrogen-only therapy and short-term estrogen/progestogen therapy. However, breast cancer risk remained elevated 5 years after discontinuing long-term estrogen/progestogen (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21).

HRT-associated risk for breast cancer increased with age across all durations of therapy.

Compared with never-use, recent long-term estrogen-only therapy was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 50-59 years and eight extra cases per 10,000 women-years among women aged 70-79.

Recent long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with 15 extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and 36 extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Past long-term estrogen/progestogen use was associated with zero extra breast cancer cases among women aged 50-59 and eight extra cases among women aged 70-79 per 10,000 women-years.

Summarizing, Dr. Vinogradova said the increased risk for breast cancer with HRT appears to be “relatively small, particularly for younger women and for any women who use HRT only for a restricted period.”

Decisions about whether to use HRT and which type to use should depend on symptom severity, patient factors, and suitability of other treatment options, she commented.

“Particularly for those women who our study has shown to be most at risk, these decisions should be made through discussions between the patient and her doctor,” she concluded. “We hope that the new and more detailed information provided by our study will facilitate such prescribing decisions.”

The study was partially funded by the School for Primary Care Research of the National Institute for Health Research, by Cancer Research UK, and by the Cancer Research UK Oxford Center. Dr. Vinogradova has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Senior author Julia Hippisley-Cox is an unpaid director of QResearch and was a paid director of ClinRisk until 2019. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.