Patient & Survivor Care

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung oligometastases nets similar safety and efficacy whether it is delivered in multiple fractions or just one fraction. This was among key findings of a randomized, phase 2 trial reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Most patients [with lung metastases] are treated with lifelong anticancer drug therapy only, with little prospect for long-term cancer control,” investigator Shankar Siva, MBBS, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said in a news briefing.

“However, some patients may have limited spread to the lungs and may be suitable for either surgery, which is an invasive approach, or SBRT, which is a noninvasive approach, with the aim to prolong long-term cancer control,” he added.
 

Patients and treatment

Dr. Siva and colleagues enrolled in their phase 2 trial (SAFRON II/TROG 13.01) 90 patients from 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand.

All patients had one to three lung metastases (from nonhematologic malignancies) that measured up to 5 cm in diameter and were located in the periphery.

The most common primaries were colorectal cancer (47%), lung cancer (11%), and kidney cancer (10%). The trial required that all primary and extrathoracic disease had been definitively treated.

The patients were randomized evenly to lung SBRT delivered with a single-fraction regimen (28 Gy in one fraction) or a multifraction regimen (48 Gy in four fractions) that netted the same biological equivalent dose.
 

Safety and efficacy

The two treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to any-grade toxicities at 1 year, with the exception of higher rates of esophagitis and radiation dermatitis in the multifraction group, Dr. Siva reported.

The rate of grade 3 or worse toxicity at 1 year – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 5% with the single fraction and 3% with multiple fractions, with overlapping 80% confidence intervals, meeting the prespecified endpoint for acceptable toxicity.

The single-fraction group had two grade 3 events that resolved with intervention and no grade 4-5 events. The multifraction group had a single grade 5 event (fatal pneumonitis in a patient with underlying interstitial lung disease) and no grade 3-4 events.

The single-fraction and multifraction groups were also similar at 1 year on rates of freedom from local failure (93% and 95%, respectively), disease-free survival (59% and 60%, respectively), and overall survival (95% and 93%, respectively), with overlapping 95% CIs for each outcome.

Analyses of quality of life and cost-effectiveness are ongoing.
 

Applying the results: Useful in a pandemic?

“Single-session SBRT is safe, convenient, and noninvasive, and appears to be effective, to date, for lung secondaries. This approach may be considered as a one-stop, knockout type of approach for patients who have one to three metastases to the lung,” Dr. Siva proposed.

“These findings may have implications for treatment selection in a resource-constrained environment, such as the current global pandemic, when trying to reduce footfall or thoroughfare within a radiotherapy department, and it’s quite a convenient approach for patients,” he added.
 

“Stereotactic radiation has an obvious advantage over conventional radiation in several ways and may have a special advantage in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce exposure to patients and our hospital personnel,” agreed news briefing moderator Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

However, use of stereotactic techniques remains controversial because they require technical precision and additional resources for planning and quality assurance, and they are often more expensive than conventional radiation therapy, she noted. Therefore, there must be evidence to justify their use in a palliative or metastatic setting.

The current trial is noteworthy for pushing the SBRT efficiency envelope, according to Dr. Yom.

“These findings are going to be confirmed by the study team with further follow-up at 3 years,” she pointed out. “If the findings of this study are maintained, it shows that patients with up to three metastatic tumors in the lung can have their treatment given in an extremely efficient manner over one session, which saves them time and hospital resources, and could be very significant to patients’ quality of life.”

The trial is sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Siva disclosed relationships with Varian Industries, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Reflexion. Dr. Yom disclosed no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Siva S et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 5.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung oligometastases nets similar safety and efficacy whether it is delivered in multiple fractions or just one fraction. This was among key findings of a randomized, phase 2 trial reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Most patients [with lung metastases] are treated with lifelong anticancer drug therapy only, with little prospect for long-term cancer control,” investigator Shankar Siva, MBBS, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said in a news briefing.

“However, some patients may have limited spread to the lungs and may be suitable for either surgery, which is an invasive approach, or SBRT, which is a noninvasive approach, with the aim to prolong long-term cancer control,” he added.
 

Patients and treatment

Dr. Siva and colleagues enrolled in their phase 2 trial (SAFRON II/TROG 13.01) 90 patients from 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand.

All patients had one to three lung metastases (from nonhematologic malignancies) that measured up to 5 cm in diameter and were located in the periphery.

The most common primaries were colorectal cancer (47%), lung cancer (11%), and kidney cancer (10%). The trial required that all primary and extrathoracic disease had been definitively treated.

The patients were randomized evenly to lung SBRT delivered with a single-fraction regimen (28 Gy in one fraction) or a multifraction regimen (48 Gy in four fractions) that netted the same biological equivalent dose.
 

Safety and efficacy

The two treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to any-grade toxicities at 1 year, with the exception of higher rates of esophagitis and radiation dermatitis in the multifraction group, Dr. Siva reported.

The rate of grade 3 or worse toxicity at 1 year – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 5% with the single fraction and 3% with multiple fractions, with overlapping 80% confidence intervals, meeting the prespecified endpoint for acceptable toxicity.

The single-fraction group had two grade 3 events that resolved with intervention and no grade 4-5 events. The multifraction group had a single grade 5 event (fatal pneumonitis in a patient with underlying interstitial lung disease) and no grade 3-4 events.

The single-fraction and multifraction groups were also similar at 1 year on rates of freedom from local failure (93% and 95%, respectively), disease-free survival (59% and 60%, respectively), and overall survival (95% and 93%, respectively), with overlapping 95% CIs for each outcome.

Analyses of quality of life and cost-effectiveness are ongoing.
 

Applying the results: Useful in a pandemic?

“Single-session SBRT is safe, convenient, and noninvasive, and appears to be effective, to date, for lung secondaries. This approach may be considered as a one-stop, knockout type of approach for patients who have one to three metastases to the lung,” Dr. Siva proposed.

“These findings may have implications for treatment selection in a resource-constrained environment, such as the current global pandemic, when trying to reduce footfall or thoroughfare within a radiotherapy department, and it’s quite a convenient approach for patients,” he added.
 

“Stereotactic radiation has an obvious advantage over conventional radiation in several ways and may have a special advantage in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce exposure to patients and our hospital personnel,” agreed news briefing moderator Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

However, use of stereotactic techniques remains controversial because they require technical precision and additional resources for planning and quality assurance, and they are often more expensive than conventional radiation therapy, she noted. Therefore, there must be evidence to justify their use in a palliative or metastatic setting.

The current trial is noteworthy for pushing the SBRT efficiency envelope, according to Dr. Yom.

“These findings are going to be confirmed by the study team with further follow-up at 3 years,” she pointed out. “If the findings of this study are maintained, it shows that patients with up to three metastatic tumors in the lung can have their treatment given in an extremely efficient manner over one session, which saves them time and hospital resources, and could be very significant to patients’ quality of life.”

The trial is sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Siva disclosed relationships with Varian Industries, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Reflexion. Dr. Yom disclosed no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Siva S et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 5.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung oligometastases nets similar safety and efficacy whether it is delivered in multiple fractions or just one fraction. This was among key findings of a randomized, phase 2 trial reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Most patients [with lung metastases] are treated with lifelong anticancer drug therapy only, with little prospect for long-term cancer control,” investigator Shankar Siva, MBBS, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said in a news briefing.

“However, some patients may have limited spread to the lungs and may be suitable for either surgery, which is an invasive approach, or SBRT, which is a noninvasive approach, with the aim to prolong long-term cancer control,” he added.
 

Patients and treatment

Dr. Siva and colleagues enrolled in their phase 2 trial (SAFRON II/TROG 13.01) 90 patients from 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand.

All patients had one to three lung metastases (from nonhematologic malignancies) that measured up to 5 cm in diameter and were located in the periphery.

The most common primaries were colorectal cancer (47%), lung cancer (11%), and kidney cancer (10%). The trial required that all primary and extrathoracic disease had been definitively treated.

The patients were randomized evenly to lung SBRT delivered with a single-fraction regimen (28 Gy in one fraction) or a multifraction regimen (48 Gy in four fractions) that netted the same biological equivalent dose.
 

Safety and efficacy

The two treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to any-grade toxicities at 1 year, with the exception of higher rates of esophagitis and radiation dermatitis in the multifraction group, Dr. Siva reported.

The rate of grade 3 or worse toxicity at 1 year – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 5% with the single fraction and 3% with multiple fractions, with overlapping 80% confidence intervals, meeting the prespecified endpoint for acceptable toxicity.

The single-fraction group had two grade 3 events that resolved with intervention and no grade 4-5 events. The multifraction group had a single grade 5 event (fatal pneumonitis in a patient with underlying interstitial lung disease) and no grade 3-4 events.

The single-fraction and multifraction groups were also similar at 1 year on rates of freedom from local failure (93% and 95%, respectively), disease-free survival (59% and 60%, respectively), and overall survival (95% and 93%, respectively), with overlapping 95% CIs for each outcome.

Analyses of quality of life and cost-effectiveness are ongoing.
 

Applying the results: Useful in a pandemic?

“Single-session SBRT is safe, convenient, and noninvasive, and appears to be effective, to date, for lung secondaries. This approach may be considered as a one-stop, knockout type of approach for patients who have one to three metastases to the lung,” Dr. Siva proposed.

“These findings may have implications for treatment selection in a resource-constrained environment, such as the current global pandemic, when trying to reduce footfall or thoroughfare within a radiotherapy department, and it’s quite a convenient approach for patients,” he added.
 

“Stereotactic radiation has an obvious advantage over conventional radiation in several ways and may have a special advantage in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce exposure to patients and our hospital personnel,” agreed news briefing moderator Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

However, use of stereotactic techniques remains controversial because they require technical precision and additional resources for planning and quality assurance, and they are often more expensive than conventional radiation therapy, she noted. Therefore, there must be evidence to justify their use in a palliative or metastatic setting.

The current trial is noteworthy for pushing the SBRT efficiency envelope, according to Dr. Yom.

“These findings are going to be confirmed by the study team with further follow-up at 3 years,” she pointed out. “If the findings of this study are maintained, it shows that patients with up to three metastatic tumors in the lung can have their treatment given in an extremely efficient manner over one session, which saves them time and hospital resources, and could be very significant to patients’ quality of life.”

The trial is sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Siva disclosed relationships with Varian Industries, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Reflexion. Dr. Yom disclosed no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Siva S et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 5.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the 1970s, cancer survival was poor for young children and older adults in the United States, as shown by data published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Great progress has been made since the 1970s, but improvements in outcome have been less impressive for cancer patients aged 15-39 years, as shown by research published in Cancer.

Factors that contribute to the AYA gap

About 89,000 AYAs are diagnosed with cancer each year in the United States, according to data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Lymphomas and thyroid cancer are the most common cancers among younger AYAs, aged 15-24 years.

In a report commissioned by the NIH in 2006, many factors contributing to the AYA gap were identified. Chief among them were:

• Limitations in access to care.
• Delayed diagnosis.
• Inconsistency in treatment and follow-up.
• Long-term toxicity (fertility, second malignancies, and cardiovascular disease).

These factors compromise health-related survival, even when cancer-specific survival is improved.

Panelist Kara Kelly, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., noted that there are additional unique challenges for AYAs with cancer. These include:

• Pubertal changes.
• Developmental transition to independence.
• Societal impediments such as insurance coverage and disparities in access to specialized centers.
• Psychosocial factors such as health literacy and adherence to treatment and follow-up.

Focusing on lymphoma specifically, Dr. Kelly noted that lymphoma biology differs across the age spectrum and by race and ethnicity. Both tumor and host factors require further study, she said.
 

Clinical trial access for AYAs

Dr. Kelly emphasized that, unfortunately, clinical research participation is low among AYAs. A major impediment is that adult clinical trials historically required participants to be at least 18 years old.

In addition, there has not been a focused effort to educate AYAs about regulatory safeguards to ensure safety and the promise of enhanced benefit to them in NCI Cancer Trials Network (NCTN) trials. As a result, the refusal rate is high.

A multi-stakeholder workshop, convened in May 2016 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research, outlined opportunities for expanding trial eligibility to include children younger than 18 years in first-in-human and other adult cancer clinical trials, enhancing their access to new agents, without compromising safety.

Recently, collaborative efforts between the adult and children’s NCTN research groups have included AYAs in studies addressing cancers that span the age spectrum, including lymphoma.

However, as Dr. Kelly noted, there are differences in AYA lymphoid malignancy types with a transition from more pediatric to more adult types.
 

Hodgkin lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma

Panelist Lisa G. Roth, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, reviewed the genomic landscape of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL).

Dr. Roth explained that both HL and PMBCL are derived from thymic B cells, predominantly affect the mediastinum, and are CD30-positive lymphomas. Both are characterized by upregulation of JAK/STAT and NF-kappaB as well as overexpression of PD-L1.

Dr. Roth noted that HL is challenging to sequence by standard methods because Reed Sternberg (HRS) cells represent less than 1% of the cellular infiltrate. Recurrently mutated genes in HL cluster by histologic subtype.

Whole-exome sequencing of HRS cells show loss of beta-2 microglobulin and MHC-1 expression, HLA-B, NF-kappaB signaling, and JAK-STAT signaling, according to data published in Blood Advances in 2019.

Dr. Roth’s lab performed immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays in 145 cases of HL (unpublished data). Results showed that loss of beta-2 microglobulin is more common in younger HL patients. For other alterations, there were too few cases to know.

Dr. Roth’s lab is a member of a pediatric/AYA HL sequencing multi-institutional consortium that has been able to extract DNA and RNA from samples submitted for whole-exome sequencing. The consortium’s goal is to shed light on implications of other genomic alterations that may differ by age in HL patients.

Dr. Roth cited research showing that PMBCL shares molecular alterations similar to those of HL. Alterations in PMBCL suggest dysregulated cellular signaling and immune evasion mechanisms (e.g., deletions in MHC type 1 and 2, beta-2 microglobulin, JAK-STAT, and NF-kappaB mutations) that provide opportunities to study novel agents, according to data published in Blood in 2019.

By early 2021, the S1826 and ANHL1931 studies, which have no age restriction, will be available to AYA lymphoma patients with HL and PMBCL, respectively, Dr. Roth said.
 

Follicular lymphoma: Clinical features by age

Panelist Abner Louissaint Jr, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed age-related differences in follicular lymphoma (FL).

He noted that FL typically presents at an advanced stage, with low- or high-grade histology. It is increasingly common in adults in their 50s and 60s, representing 20% of all lymphomas. FL is rare in children and AYAs.

Dr. Louissaint explained that the typical flow cytometric findings in FL are BCL2 translocations, occurring in up to 85%-90% of low-grade and 50% of high-grade cases. The t(14;18)(q32;q21) translocation juxtaposes BCL2 on 18q21 to regulatory sequences and enhances the expression of elements of the Ig heavy chain.

Malignant cells in FL patients express CD20, CD10, CD21, and BCL2 (in contrast to normal germinal centers) and overexpress BCL6 (in contrast to normal follicles), Dr. Louissaint noted. He said the Ki-67 proliferative index of the malignant cells is typically low.

Pediatric-type FL is rare, but case series show clinical, pathologic, and molecular features that are distinctive from adult FL, Dr. Louissaint explained.

He then discussed the features of pediatric-type FL in multiple domains. In the clinical domain, there is a male predilection, and stage tends to be low. There is frequent involvement of nodes of the head and neck region and rare involvement of internal lymph node chains.

Pathologically, the malignant cells appear high grade, with architectural effacement, expansile follicular pattern, large lymphocyte size, and an elevated proliferation index. In contrast to adult FL, malignant cells in pediatric-type FL lack aberrant BCL2 expression.

Most importantly, for pediatric-type FL, the prognosis is excellent with durable remissions after surgical excision, Dr. Louissaint said.
 

Follicular lymphoma: Molecular features by age

Because of the excellent prognosis in pediatric-type FL, it is important to assess whether young adults with FL have adult-type or pediatric-type lesions, Dr. Louissaint said.

He cited many studies showing differences in adult and pediatric-type FL. In adult FL, the mutational landscape is characterized by frequent chromatin-modifying mutations in genes such as CREBBP, KM22D, and EP300.

In contrast, in pediatric-type FL, there are frequent activating MAPK pathway mutations, including mutations in the negative regulatory domain of MAP2K1. These mutations are not seen in adult FL.

Dr. Louissaint noted that there may be mutations in epigenetic modifiers (CREBBP, TNFRSF14) in both adult and pediatric-type FL. However, CREBBP is very unusual in pediatric-type FL and common in adult FL. This suggests the alterations in pediatric-type FL do not simply represent an early stage of the same disease as adult FL.

Despite a high proliferating fraction and absence of BCL2/BCL6/IRF4 rearrangements in pediatric-type FL, the presence of these features was associated with dramatic difference in progression-free survival, according to research published in Blood in 2012.
 

A distinct entity

In 2016, the World Health Organization recognized pediatric-type FL as a distinct entity, with the following diagnostic criteria (published in Blood):

• At least partial effacement of nodal architecture, expansile follicles, intermediate-size blastoid cells, and no component of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
• Immunohistochemistry showing BCL6 positivity, BCL2 negativity or weak positivity, and a high proliferative fraction.
• Genomic studies showing no BCL2 amplification.
• Clinical features of nodal disease in the head and neck region, early clinical stage, age younger than 40 years, typically in a male with no internal nodes involved.

When FL occurs in AYAs, the diagnostic findings of pediatric-type FL suggest the patient will do well with conservative management (e.g., excision alone), Dr. Louissaint noted.
 

Two sizes do not fit all

The strategies that have improved cancer outcomes since the 1970s for children and older adults have been much less successful for AYAs with cancer.

As an oncologic community, we should not allow the AYA gap to persist. As always, the solutions are likely to involve focused clinical research, education, and communication. Effort will need to be targeted specifically to the AYA population.

Since health-related mortality is high even when cancer-specific outcomes improve, adopting and maintaining a healthy lifestyle must be a key part of the discussion with these young patients.

The biologic differences associated with AYA lymphomas demand participation in clinical trials.

Oncologists should vigorously support removing impediments to the participation of AYAs in prospective clinical trials, stratified (but unrestricted) by age, with careful analysis of patient-reported outcomes, late adverse effects, and biospecimen collection.

As Dr. Kelly noted in the question-and-answer period, the Children’s Oncology Group has an existing biobank of paraffin-embedded tumor samples, DNA from lymphoma specimens, plasma, and sera with clinically annotated data that can be given to investigators upon request and justification.
 

Going beyond eligibility for clinical trials

Unfortunately, we will likely find that broadening eligibility criteria is the “low-hanging fruit.” There are protocol-, patient-, and physician-related obstacles, according to a review published in Cancer in 2019.

Patient-related obstacles include fear of toxicity, uncertainty about placebos, a steep learning curve for health literacy, insurance-related impediments, and other access-related issues.

Discussions will need to be tailored to the AYA population. Frank, early conversations about fertility, sexuality, financial hardship, career advancement, work-life balance, and cognitive risks may not only facilitate treatment planning but also encourage the trust that is essential for patients to enroll in trials.

The investment in time, multidisciplinary staff and physician involvement, and potential delays in treatment initiation may be painful and inconvenient, but the benefits for long-term health outcomes and personal-professional relationships will be gratifying beyond measure.

Dr. Smith disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, Celgene, TGTX, Karyopharm, Janssen, and Bantem. Dr. Roth disclosed relationships with Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, and Celgene. Dr. Kelly and Dr. Louissaint had no financial relationships to disclose.



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.

In the 1970s, cancer survival was poor for young children and older adults in the United States, as shown by data published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Great progress has been made since the 1970s, but improvements in outcome have been less impressive for cancer patients aged 15-39 years, as shown by research published in Cancer.

Factors that contribute to the AYA gap

About 89,000 AYAs are diagnosed with cancer each year in the United States, according to data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Lymphomas and thyroid cancer are the most common cancers among younger AYAs, aged 15-24 years.

In a report commissioned by the NIH in 2006, many factors contributing to the AYA gap were identified. Chief among them were:

• Limitations in access to care.
• Delayed diagnosis.
• Inconsistency in treatment and follow-up.
• Long-term toxicity (fertility, second malignancies, and cardiovascular disease).

These factors compromise health-related survival, even when cancer-specific survival is improved.

Panelist Kara Kelly, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., noted that there are additional unique challenges for AYAs with cancer. These include:

• Pubertal changes.
• Developmental transition to independence.
• Societal impediments such as insurance coverage and disparities in access to specialized centers.
• Psychosocial factors such as health literacy and adherence to treatment and follow-up.

Focusing on lymphoma specifically, Dr. Kelly noted that lymphoma biology differs across the age spectrum and by race and ethnicity. Both tumor and host factors require further study, she said.
 

Clinical trial access for AYAs

Dr. Kelly emphasized that, unfortunately, clinical research participation is low among AYAs. A major impediment is that adult clinical trials historically required participants to be at least 18 years old.

In addition, there has not been a focused effort to educate AYAs about regulatory safeguards to ensure safety and the promise of enhanced benefit to them in NCI Cancer Trials Network (NCTN) trials. As a result, the refusal rate is high.

A multi-stakeholder workshop, convened in May 2016 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research, outlined opportunities for expanding trial eligibility to include children younger than 18 years in first-in-human and other adult cancer clinical trials, enhancing their access to new agents, without compromising safety.

Recently, collaborative efforts between the adult and children’s NCTN research groups have included AYAs in studies addressing cancers that span the age spectrum, including lymphoma.

However, as Dr. Kelly noted, there are differences in AYA lymphoid malignancy types with a transition from more pediatric to more adult types.
 

Hodgkin lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma

Panelist Lisa G. Roth, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, reviewed the genomic landscape of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL).

Dr. Roth explained that both HL and PMBCL are derived from thymic B cells, predominantly affect the mediastinum, and are CD30-positive lymphomas. Both are characterized by upregulation of JAK/STAT and NF-kappaB as well as overexpression of PD-L1.

Dr. Roth noted that HL is challenging to sequence by standard methods because Reed Sternberg (HRS) cells represent less than 1% of the cellular infiltrate. Recurrently mutated genes in HL cluster by histologic subtype.

Whole-exome sequencing of HRS cells show loss of beta-2 microglobulin and MHC-1 expression, HLA-B, NF-kappaB signaling, and JAK-STAT signaling, according to data published in Blood Advances in 2019.

Dr. Roth’s lab performed immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays in 145 cases of HL (unpublished data). Results showed that loss of beta-2 microglobulin is more common in younger HL patients. For other alterations, there were too few cases to know.

Dr. Roth’s lab is a member of a pediatric/AYA HL sequencing multi-institutional consortium that has been able to extract DNA and RNA from samples submitted for whole-exome sequencing. The consortium’s goal is to shed light on implications of other genomic alterations that may differ by age in HL patients.

Dr. Roth cited research showing that PMBCL shares molecular alterations similar to those of HL. Alterations in PMBCL suggest dysregulated cellular signaling and immune evasion mechanisms (e.g., deletions in MHC type 1 and 2, beta-2 microglobulin, JAK-STAT, and NF-kappaB mutations) that provide opportunities to study novel agents, according to data published in Blood in 2019.

By early 2021, the S1826 and ANHL1931 studies, which have no age restriction, will be available to AYA lymphoma patients with HL and PMBCL, respectively, Dr. Roth said.
 

Follicular lymphoma: Clinical features by age

Panelist Abner Louissaint Jr, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed age-related differences in follicular lymphoma (FL).

He noted that FL typically presents at an advanced stage, with low- or high-grade histology. It is increasingly common in adults in their 50s and 60s, representing 20% of all lymphomas. FL is rare in children and AYAs.

Dr. Louissaint explained that the typical flow cytometric findings in FL are BCL2 translocations, occurring in up to 85%-90% of low-grade and 50% of high-grade cases. The t(14;18)(q32;q21) translocation juxtaposes BCL2 on 18q21 to regulatory sequences and enhances the expression of elements of the Ig heavy chain.

Malignant cells in FL patients express CD20, CD10, CD21, and BCL2 (in contrast to normal germinal centers) and overexpress BCL6 (in contrast to normal follicles), Dr. Louissaint noted. He said the Ki-67 proliferative index of the malignant cells is typically low.

Pediatric-type FL is rare, but case series show clinical, pathologic, and molecular features that are distinctive from adult FL, Dr. Louissaint explained.

He then discussed the features of pediatric-type FL in multiple domains. In the clinical domain, there is a male predilection, and stage tends to be low. There is frequent involvement of nodes of the head and neck region and rare involvement of internal lymph node chains.

Pathologically, the malignant cells appear high grade, with architectural effacement, expansile follicular pattern, large lymphocyte size, and an elevated proliferation index. In contrast to adult FL, malignant cells in pediatric-type FL lack aberrant BCL2 expression.

Most importantly, for pediatric-type FL, the prognosis is excellent with durable remissions after surgical excision, Dr. Louissaint said.
 

Follicular lymphoma: Molecular features by age

Because of the excellent prognosis in pediatric-type FL, it is important to assess whether young adults with FL have adult-type or pediatric-type lesions, Dr. Louissaint said.

He cited many studies showing differences in adult and pediatric-type FL. In adult FL, the mutational landscape is characterized by frequent chromatin-modifying mutations in genes such as CREBBP, KM22D, and EP300.

In contrast, in pediatric-type FL, there are frequent activating MAPK pathway mutations, including mutations in the negative regulatory domain of MAP2K1. These mutations are not seen in adult FL.

Dr. Louissaint noted that there may be mutations in epigenetic modifiers (CREBBP, TNFRSF14) in both adult and pediatric-type FL. However, CREBBP is very unusual in pediatric-type FL and common in adult FL. This suggests the alterations in pediatric-type FL do not simply represent an early stage of the same disease as adult FL.

Despite a high proliferating fraction and absence of BCL2/BCL6/IRF4 rearrangements in pediatric-type FL, the presence of these features was associated with dramatic difference in progression-free survival, according to research published in Blood in 2012.
 

A distinct entity

In 2016, the World Health Organization recognized pediatric-type FL as a distinct entity, with the following diagnostic criteria (published in Blood):

• At least partial effacement of nodal architecture, expansile follicles, intermediate-size blastoid cells, and no component of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
• Immunohistochemistry showing BCL6 positivity, BCL2 negativity or weak positivity, and a high proliferative fraction.
• Genomic studies showing no BCL2 amplification.
• Clinical features of nodal disease in the head and neck region, early clinical stage, age younger than 40 years, typically in a male with no internal nodes involved.

When FL occurs in AYAs, the diagnostic findings of pediatric-type FL suggest the patient will do well with conservative management (e.g., excision alone), Dr. Louissaint noted.
 

Two sizes do not fit all

The strategies that have improved cancer outcomes since the 1970s for children and older adults have been much less successful for AYAs with cancer.

As an oncologic community, we should not allow the AYA gap to persist. As always, the solutions are likely to involve focused clinical research, education, and communication. Effort will need to be targeted specifically to the AYA population.

Since health-related mortality is high even when cancer-specific outcomes improve, adopting and maintaining a healthy lifestyle must be a key part of the discussion with these young patients.

The biologic differences associated with AYA lymphomas demand participation in clinical trials.

Oncologists should vigorously support removing impediments to the participation of AYAs in prospective clinical trials, stratified (but unrestricted) by age, with careful analysis of patient-reported outcomes, late adverse effects, and biospecimen collection.

As Dr. Kelly noted in the question-and-answer period, the Children’s Oncology Group has an existing biobank of paraffin-embedded tumor samples, DNA from lymphoma specimens, plasma, and sera with clinically annotated data that can be given to investigators upon request and justification.
 

Going beyond eligibility for clinical trials

Unfortunately, we will likely find that broadening eligibility criteria is the “low-hanging fruit.” There are protocol-, patient-, and physician-related obstacles, according to a review published in Cancer in 2019.

Patient-related obstacles include fear of toxicity, uncertainty about placebos, a steep learning curve for health literacy, insurance-related impediments, and other access-related issues.

Discussions will need to be tailored to the AYA population. Frank, early conversations about fertility, sexuality, financial hardship, career advancement, work-life balance, and cognitive risks may not only facilitate treatment planning but also encourage the trust that is essential for patients to enroll in trials.

The investment in time, multidisciplinary staff and physician involvement, and potential delays in treatment initiation may be painful and inconvenient, but the benefits for long-term health outcomes and personal-professional relationships will be gratifying beyond measure.

Dr. Smith disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, Celgene, TGTX, Karyopharm, Janssen, and Bantem. Dr. Roth disclosed relationships with Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, and Celgene. Dr. Kelly and Dr. Louissaint had no financial relationships to disclose.



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.

In the 1970s, cancer survival was poor for young children and older adults in the United States, as shown by data published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Great progress has been made since the 1970s, but improvements in outcome have been less impressive for cancer patients aged 15-39 years, as shown by research published in Cancer.

Factors that contribute to the AYA gap

About 89,000 AYAs are diagnosed with cancer each year in the United States, according to data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Lymphomas and thyroid cancer are the most common cancers among younger AYAs, aged 15-24 years.

In a report commissioned by the NIH in 2006, many factors contributing to the AYA gap were identified. Chief among them were:

• Limitations in access to care.
• Delayed diagnosis.
• Inconsistency in treatment and follow-up.
• Long-term toxicity (fertility, second malignancies, and cardiovascular disease).

These factors compromise health-related survival, even when cancer-specific survival is improved.

Panelist Kara Kelly, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., noted that there are additional unique challenges for AYAs with cancer. These include:

• Pubertal changes.
• Developmental transition to independence.
• Societal impediments such as insurance coverage and disparities in access to specialized centers.
• Psychosocial factors such as health literacy and adherence to treatment and follow-up.

Focusing on lymphoma specifically, Dr. Kelly noted that lymphoma biology differs across the age spectrum and by race and ethnicity. Both tumor and host factors require further study, she said.
 

Clinical trial access for AYAs

Dr. Kelly emphasized that, unfortunately, clinical research participation is low among AYAs. A major impediment is that adult clinical trials historically required participants to be at least 18 years old.

In addition, there has not been a focused effort to educate AYAs about regulatory safeguards to ensure safety and the promise of enhanced benefit to them in NCI Cancer Trials Network (NCTN) trials. As a result, the refusal rate is high.

A multi-stakeholder workshop, convened in May 2016 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research, outlined opportunities for expanding trial eligibility to include children younger than 18 years in first-in-human and other adult cancer clinical trials, enhancing their access to new agents, without compromising safety.

Recently, collaborative efforts between the adult and children’s NCTN research groups have included AYAs in studies addressing cancers that span the age spectrum, including lymphoma.

However, as Dr. Kelly noted, there are differences in AYA lymphoid malignancy types with a transition from more pediatric to more adult types.
 

Hodgkin lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma

Panelist Lisa G. Roth, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, reviewed the genomic landscape of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL).

Dr. Roth explained that both HL and PMBCL are derived from thymic B cells, predominantly affect the mediastinum, and are CD30-positive lymphomas. Both are characterized by upregulation of JAK/STAT and NF-kappaB as well as overexpression of PD-L1.

Dr. Roth noted that HL is challenging to sequence by standard methods because Reed Sternberg (HRS) cells represent less than 1% of the cellular infiltrate. Recurrently mutated genes in HL cluster by histologic subtype.

Whole-exome sequencing of HRS cells show loss of beta-2 microglobulin and MHC-1 expression, HLA-B, NF-kappaB signaling, and JAK-STAT signaling, according to data published in Blood Advances in 2019.

Dr. Roth’s lab performed immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays in 145 cases of HL (unpublished data). Results showed that loss of beta-2 microglobulin is more common in younger HL patients. For other alterations, there were too few cases to know.

Dr. Roth’s lab is a member of a pediatric/AYA HL sequencing multi-institutional consortium that has been able to extract DNA and RNA from samples submitted for whole-exome sequencing. The consortium’s goal is to shed light on implications of other genomic alterations that may differ by age in HL patients.

Dr. Roth cited research showing that PMBCL shares molecular alterations similar to those of HL. Alterations in PMBCL suggest dysregulated cellular signaling and immune evasion mechanisms (e.g., deletions in MHC type 1 and 2, beta-2 microglobulin, JAK-STAT, and NF-kappaB mutations) that provide opportunities to study novel agents, according to data published in Blood in 2019.

By early 2021, the S1826 and ANHL1931 studies, which have no age restriction, will be available to AYA lymphoma patients with HL and PMBCL, respectively, Dr. Roth said.
 

Follicular lymphoma: Clinical features by age

Panelist Abner Louissaint Jr, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed age-related differences in follicular lymphoma (FL).

He noted that FL typically presents at an advanced stage, with low- or high-grade histology. It is increasingly common in adults in their 50s and 60s, representing 20% of all lymphomas. FL is rare in children and AYAs.

Dr. Louissaint explained that the typical flow cytometric findings in FL are BCL2 translocations, occurring in up to 85%-90% of low-grade and 50% of high-grade cases. The t(14;18)(q32;q21) translocation juxtaposes BCL2 on 18q21 to regulatory sequences and enhances the expression of elements of the Ig heavy chain.

Malignant cells in FL patients express CD20, CD10, CD21, and BCL2 (in contrast to normal germinal centers) and overexpress BCL6 (in contrast to normal follicles), Dr. Louissaint noted. He said the Ki-67 proliferative index of the malignant cells is typically low.

Pediatric-type FL is rare, but case series show clinical, pathologic, and molecular features that are distinctive from adult FL, Dr. Louissaint explained.

He then discussed the features of pediatric-type FL in multiple domains. In the clinical domain, there is a male predilection, and stage tends to be low. There is frequent involvement of nodes of the head and neck region and rare involvement of internal lymph node chains.

Pathologically, the malignant cells appear high grade, with architectural effacement, expansile follicular pattern, large lymphocyte size, and an elevated proliferation index. In contrast to adult FL, malignant cells in pediatric-type FL lack aberrant BCL2 expression.

Most importantly, for pediatric-type FL, the prognosis is excellent with durable remissions after surgical excision, Dr. Louissaint said.
 

Follicular lymphoma: Molecular features by age

Because of the excellent prognosis in pediatric-type FL, it is important to assess whether young adults with FL have adult-type or pediatric-type lesions, Dr. Louissaint said.

He cited many studies showing differences in adult and pediatric-type FL. In adult FL, the mutational landscape is characterized by frequent chromatin-modifying mutations in genes such as CREBBP, KM22D, and EP300.

In contrast, in pediatric-type FL, there are frequent activating MAPK pathway mutations, including mutations in the negative regulatory domain of MAP2K1. These mutations are not seen in adult FL.

Dr. Louissaint noted that there may be mutations in epigenetic modifiers (CREBBP, TNFRSF14) in both adult and pediatric-type FL. However, CREBBP is very unusual in pediatric-type FL and common in adult FL. This suggests the alterations in pediatric-type FL do not simply represent an early stage of the same disease as adult FL.

Despite a high proliferating fraction and absence of BCL2/BCL6/IRF4 rearrangements in pediatric-type FL, the presence of these features was associated with dramatic difference in progression-free survival, according to research published in Blood in 2012.
 

A distinct entity

In 2016, the World Health Organization recognized pediatric-type FL as a distinct entity, with the following diagnostic criteria (published in Blood):

• At least partial effacement of nodal architecture, expansile follicles, intermediate-size blastoid cells, and no component of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
• Immunohistochemistry showing BCL6 positivity, BCL2 negativity or weak positivity, and a high proliferative fraction.
• Genomic studies showing no BCL2 amplification.
• Clinical features of nodal disease in the head and neck region, early clinical stage, age younger than 40 years, typically in a male with no internal nodes involved.

When FL occurs in AYAs, the diagnostic findings of pediatric-type FL suggest the patient will do well with conservative management (e.g., excision alone), Dr. Louissaint noted.
 

Two sizes do not fit all

The strategies that have improved cancer outcomes since the 1970s for children and older adults have been much less successful for AYAs with cancer.

As an oncologic community, we should not allow the AYA gap to persist. As always, the solutions are likely to involve focused clinical research, education, and communication. Effort will need to be targeted specifically to the AYA population.

Since health-related mortality is high even when cancer-specific outcomes improve, adopting and maintaining a healthy lifestyle must be a key part of the discussion with these young patients.

The biologic differences associated with AYA lymphomas demand participation in clinical trials.

Oncologists should vigorously support removing impediments to the participation of AYAs in prospective clinical trials, stratified (but unrestricted) by age, with careful analysis of patient-reported outcomes, late adverse effects, and biospecimen collection.

As Dr. Kelly noted in the question-and-answer period, the Children’s Oncology Group has an existing biobank of paraffin-embedded tumor samples, DNA from lymphoma specimens, plasma, and sera with clinically annotated data that can be given to investigators upon request and justification.
 

Going beyond eligibility for clinical trials

Unfortunately, we will likely find that broadening eligibility criteria is the “low-hanging fruit.” There are protocol-, patient-, and physician-related obstacles, according to a review published in Cancer in 2019.

Patient-related obstacles include fear of toxicity, uncertainty about placebos, a steep learning curve for health literacy, insurance-related impediments, and other access-related issues.

Discussions will need to be tailored to the AYA population. Frank, early conversations about fertility, sexuality, financial hardship, career advancement, work-life balance, and cognitive risks may not only facilitate treatment planning but also encourage the trust that is essential for patients to enroll in trials.

The investment in time, multidisciplinary staff and physician involvement, and potential delays in treatment initiation may be painful and inconvenient, but the benefits for long-term health outcomes and personal-professional relationships will be gratifying beyond measure.

Dr. Smith disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, Celgene, TGTX, Karyopharm, Janssen, and Bantem. Dr. Roth disclosed relationships with Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, and Celgene. Dr. Kelly and Dr. Louissaint had no financial relationships to disclose.



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.

When the first reports emerged of “cytokine storm” in patients with severe COVID-19, all eyes turned to cancer research. Oncologists have years of experience reigning in “cytokine release syndrome” (CRS) in patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) therapies for advanced blood cancers.

There was hope that drugs used to quell CRS in patients with cancer would be effective in patients with severe COVID. But the promise of a quick fix with oncology medications has yet to be fully realized.

Part of the problem is that the two conditions, while analogous, are “not the same,” said Nirali Shah, MD, head of the hematologic malignancies section in the pediatric oncology branch at the National Cancer Institute.

“You have to understand the underlying pathophysiology, what triggers the inflammation,” Dr. Shah said.

CAR T–related CRS is caused by activated T cells in patients with cancer who often do not have an infection, she explained. In contrast, cytokine storm in COVID-19 is triggered by a viral pathogen that can drive “out of control” inflammation. These differences may explain why drugs work in the first instance, but not in the second, she added. Drugs that inhibit interleukin-6 (such as tocilizumab, sarilumab, and siltuximab) are used with great success to dampen down the CRS in patients receiving CAR therapy for blood cancers. And although trials of these agents in patients with COVID are still ongoing, initial results are disappointing.

The first global, phase 3 randomized controlled trial of tocilizumab in severe COVID-19 failed to meet its primary endpoint of improved clinical status, and it did not meet its secondary endpoint of improved mortality at week 4.

In its recent recommendations, the National Institutes of Health noted a lack of data to support the efficacy of IL-6 inhibitors in COVID-19, and recommended against their use, except as part of a clinical trial.
 

Trimming the tree vs. cutting it down

As researchers have begun to decode the immune process underlying severe COVID-19, they have turned to other cancer drugs to tame cytokine storm.

Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, and Wyndham Wilson, MD, PhD, both at the NCI, think that cytokine storm in COVID-19 is driven by macrophages, which trigger release of multiple cytokines.

For years, the pair have been studying lymphoid tumors. Dr. Staudt is chief of the lymphoid malignancies branch at the NCI, and Wilson is head of the lymphoma therapeutics section. In past work, Dr. Staudt discovered that inhibiting an enzyme called bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) dampens macrophage function.

When the pandemic began, Dr. Staudt and Dr. Wilson realized that singling out just one cytokine like IL-6 may not be enough. They thought that a more effective approach may be to target macrophages with a BTK inhibitor called acalabrutinib (Calquence), which would inhibit multiple cytokines at the same time.

Dr. Staudt likens the immune response to a tree, with the macrophages composing the tree trunk and the limbs made up of individual cytokines.

“Targeting macrophages is getting at the trunk of the problem,” he said. “You’re only cutting off the limbs with tocilizumab.”

In just 3 days, Dr. Staudt and Dr. Wilson went from concept to approval to launching a prospective, observational study. The study took place at five centers in the US, and included 19 patients hospitalized with COVID-19; the results were published in Science Immunology. Over a treatment course of 14 days, the majority of patients treated off-label with acalabrutinib improved, some within 24 hours. Eight of 11 patients on supplemental oxygen were discharged on room air. Four of eight patients on ventilators were extubated, with two of these discharged on room air. Two patients on ventilators died. No discernible toxicity was noted.

Analyses also showed increased BTK activity and elevated IL-6 levels in monocytes – precursors of macrophages – in patients with severe COVID-19, compared with healthy volunteers.

“We showed that the target of acalabrutinib was active in the immune cells of patients with severe COVID-19,” Dr. Staudt said. “So we have the target. We have the drug to hit the target. And we have an apparent clinical benefit.”

Those three things were compelling enough to launch the CALAVI phase 2 trial, an open-label, randomized, controlled trial, sponsored by AstraZeneca and the NCI, that is being conducted in the United States and internationally. It is testing acalabrutinib with best supportive care versus BSC alone in people hospitalized with COVID-19. The trial is scheduled to be completed on Nov. 26.

Preliminary insights from this trial are expected soon. “These are not insights that we will likely publish, but they are important insights that will lead to the launch of a definitive double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trial, which we hope to launch in the next month or so,” Dr. Wilson said.
 

Targeting inflammation and infection simultaneously

Other scientists are investigating inhibitors of Janus kinase (JAK), a family of enzymes that play a key role in orchestrating immune responses, particularly cytokines. Interest in JAK inhibition to control hyperinflammation in cancer goes back at least 15 years, and drugs that act as JAK inhibitors are already approved for use in the treatment of myelofibrosis (ruxolitinib [Jakafi], fedratinib [Inrebic]) and also for rheumatoid arthritis (upadacitinib [Rinvoq], baricitinib [Olumiant]).

“It wasn’t a huge leap for those of us with a lot of understanding of JAK inhibitors to propose taking them into the clinic to treat patients with COVID-19,” commented John Mascarenhas, MD, the leader of clinical investigation in the myeloproliferative disorders program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Mascarenhas is also principal investigator of the PRE-VENT trial, which is comparing the investigational JAK2 inhibitor pacritinib plus standard of care to standard of care alone in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19, with and without cancer. The trial is sponsored by CTI BioPharma (manufacturer of pacritinib), and is taking place at 10 sites in the United States.

In a move that may raise eyebrows, PRE-VENT skipped phase 1 and 2 and went straight to phase 3. Pacritinib has yet to receive FDA approval and has mostly been studied in myelofibrosis, an intensely inflammatory disease.

The decision was based on trials of pacritinib in hematologic malignancies and also on results from a phase 2 study in China that found possible clinical benefit for the JAK 1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in 43 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19, although results were not statistically significant, Dr. Mascarenhas explained.

Recent results from Lilly’s ACTT-2 study have provided further support for the role of JAK inhibitors in treating cytokine storm. ACTT-2 is a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, controlled trial sponsored by the NIH and NIAID comparing the JAK 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib plus the antiviral remdesivir with remdesivir alone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In September, Lilly announced that the trial met its primary endpoint of decreased time to recovery in patients who received baricitinib in combination with remdesivir.

But pacritinib’s mechanism of action may take things a step further. The drug selectively inhibits JAK2 and spares JAK1, which is important for antiviral activity in the immune system. Also, in vitro data suggests pacritinib may simultaneously reduce inflammation and fight off the virus by selectively inhibiting two additional enzymes and two other receptors.

“The rationale to me is very strong for using pacritinib,” Dr. Mascarenhas said. “I think this approach was bold but appropriate.”

The main safety concern with pacritinib could be bleeding, especially among patients on anticoagulants, Dr. Mascarenhas said. Because some patients with severe COVID-19 tend to develop blood clots, anticoagulation has become the standard of care at many institutions.

Because the trial is just beginning – only a minority of the total planned population of 358 patients has been enrolled – no interim results are available.
 

Right drug, wrong time?

IL-6 inhibition could still have a role to play in COVID-19, but the trick could be in the timing. Most of the trials so far have studied tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19, many of whom were already on ventilators. At that point, it may be too late to reverse the damage that has already taken place.

One of the main reasons tocilizumab works so well in CRS after CAR T therapy is that oncologists have learned how to use it early, often within 24 hours of fever onset. Oncologists use the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading system, which helps them identify CRS when it is easier to control.

But applying the ASTCT grading system to COVID-19 is problematic. “Almost by definition, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have low oxygen levels, which throws off the scale,” said Joshua Hill, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who has research expertise in infectious complications after CAR T therapy.

“The key is to intervene earlier to prevent damage to the lungs and other end organs. We don’t have anything magical that will reverse that damage,” Dr. Hill said.

Results from the phase 3 trial EMPACTA trial (sponsored by Genentech) seem to bear this out. EMPACTA is evaluating use of tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with less severe COVID-19 who do not yet require mechanical ventilation. The trial is notable for being the first global phase 3 trial to demonstrate efficacy for tocilizumab vs placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, and for including a high percentage of racial/ethnic minorities (85% of 389 participants), who have been hard hit by the pandemic and have historically been underrepresented in drug trials.

Last month, Roche announced that EMPACTA met its primary endpoint. Results showed that patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia who received tocilizumab plus standard of care were 44% less likely to go on mechanical ventilation or die, compared with those who received placebo plus standard of care (P = .0348), although there were no statistically significant differences in death by day 28 between tocilizumab and placebo (10.4% vs. 8.6%, P = .5146).

However, earlier administration of tocilizumab raises another issue. IL-6 and its pathway are important for clearing viral infections. Using tocilizumab in the context of an ongoing infection could raise safety issues.

Also, tocilizumab sticks around in the body for a relatively long time. In the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, it is dosed once a month, and it carries a black box warning for reactivation of tuberculosis.

Whereas results from EMPACTA showed similar rates of infection associated with tocilizumab and placebo (10% vs. 11%), at least one other study has found increased rates of superinfection in patients with severe COVID-19 who received tocilizumab. Overall, though, the drug was associated with decreased risk of death in the latter study.

A phase 2 trial called COVIDOSE is tackling the safety issue. COVIDOSE is evaluating whether low-dose tocilizumab is effective in noncritical COVID-19 patients, with the idea that lower doses could be safer. Early results published as a preprint before peer review indicated that low-dose tocilizumab (ranging from 40 mg to 200 mg) was associated with clinical improvement in 32 noncritical patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Five patients (15.6%) developed bacterial superinfections, and five (15.6%) died by 28-day follow-up, although there wasn’t a perfect “overlap” between these groups of patients. Bacterial superinfection was not the cause of death in all five patients who died, and not all patients who died developed bacterial superinfections, according to senior author Pankti Reid, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago.

Results from COVIDOSE also showed that treatment with tocilizumab did not seem to affect the ability of patients to develop antibodies against COVID-19. The results set the stage for a larger randomized, controlled trial (still ongoing) to determine the optimal dose of tocilizumab.

Still, Dr. Hill urges caution.

Many of these immunomodulators have been used only in the context of a clinical trial, or only for patients with terminal cancer and no other treatment options. In patients with cancer, these drugs have been studied and have shown an “acceptable safety profile,” according to Dr. Shah.

But this is a different situation, and when it comes to repurposing them to relatively healthy patients with COVID-19, Dr. Hill emphasized the need for careful research.

“We’re always very concerned about giving drugs that suppress the immune response if people have active infections,” Dr. Hill said. “Often times we think it makes things worse, and it typically does.”

Dr. Mascarenhas reported institutional research funding from CTI Biopharma. Dr. Hill, Dr. Staudt, Dr. Wilson, and Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the first reports emerged of “cytokine storm” in patients with severe COVID-19, all eyes turned to cancer research. Oncologists have years of experience reigning in “cytokine release syndrome” (CRS) in patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) therapies for advanced blood cancers.

There was hope that drugs used to quell CRS in patients with cancer would be effective in patients with severe COVID. But the promise of a quick fix with oncology medications has yet to be fully realized.

Part of the problem is that the two conditions, while analogous, are “not the same,” said Nirali Shah, MD, head of the hematologic malignancies section in the pediatric oncology branch at the National Cancer Institute.

“You have to understand the underlying pathophysiology, what triggers the inflammation,” Dr. Shah said.

CAR T–related CRS is caused by activated T cells in patients with cancer who often do not have an infection, she explained. In contrast, cytokine storm in COVID-19 is triggered by a viral pathogen that can drive “out of control” inflammation. These differences may explain why drugs work in the first instance, but not in the second, she added. Drugs that inhibit interleukin-6 (such as tocilizumab, sarilumab, and siltuximab) are used with great success to dampen down the CRS in patients receiving CAR therapy for blood cancers. And although trials of these agents in patients with COVID are still ongoing, initial results are disappointing.

The first global, phase 3 randomized controlled trial of tocilizumab in severe COVID-19 failed to meet its primary endpoint of improved clinical status, and it did not meet its secondary endpoint of improved mortality at week 4.

In its recent recommendations, the National Institutes of Health noted a lack of data to support the efficacy of IL-6 inhibitors in COVID-19, and recommended against their use, except as part of a clinical trial.
 

Trimming the tree vs. cutting it down

As researchers have begun to decode the immune process underlying severe COVID-19, they have turned to other cancer drugs to tame cytokine storm.

Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, and Wyndham Wilson, MD, PhD, both at the NCI, think that cytokine storm in COVID-19 is driven by macrophages, which trigger release of multiple cytokines.

For years, the pair have been studying lymphoid tumors. Dr. Staudt is chief of the lymphoid malignancies branch at the NCI, and Wilson is head of the lymphoma therapeutics section. In past work, Dr. Staudt discovered that inhibiting an enzyme called bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) dampens macrophage function.

When the pandemic began, Dr. Staudt and Dr. Wilson realized that singling out just one cytokine like IL-6 may not be enough. They thought that a more effective approach may be to target macrophages with a BTK inhibitor called acalabrutinib (Calquence), which would inhibit multiple cytokines at the same time.

Dr. Staudt likens the immune response to a tree, with the macrophages composing the tree trunk and the limbs made up of individual cytokines.

“Targeting macrophages is getting at the trunk of the problem,” he said. “You’re only cutting off the limbs with tocilizumab.”

In just 3 days, Dr. Staudt and Dr. Wilson went from concept to approval to launching a prospective, observational study. The study took place at five centers in the US, and included 19 patients hospitalized with COVID-19; the results were published in Science Immunology. Over a treatment course of 14 days, the majority of patients treated off-label with acalabrutinib improved, some within 24 hours. Eight of 11 patients on supplemental oxygen were discharged on room air. Four of eight patients on ventilators were extubated, with two of these discharged on room air. Two patients on ventilators died. No discernible toxicity was noted.

Analyses also showed increased BTK activity and elevated IL-6 levels in monocytes – precursors of macrophages – in patients with severe COVID-19, compared with healthy volunteers.

“We showed that the target of acalabrutinib was active in the immune cells of patients with severe COVID-19,” Dr. Staudt said. “So we have the target. We have the drug to hit the target. And we have an apparent clinical benefit.”

Those three things were compelling enough to launch the CALAVI phase 2 trial, an open-label, randomized, controlled trial, sponsored by AstraZeneca and the NCI, that is being conducted in the United States and internationally. It is testing acalabrutinib with best supportive care versus BSC alone in people hospitalized with COVID-19. The trial is scheduled to be completed on Nov. 26.

Preliminary insights from this trial are expected soon. “These are not insights that we will likely publish, but they are important insights that will lead to the launch of a definitive double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trial, which we hope to launch in the next month or so,” Dr. Wilson said.
 

Targeting inflammation and infection simultaneously

Other scientists are investigating inhibitors of Janus kinase (JAK), a family of enzymes that play a key role in orchestrating immune responses, particularly cytokines. Interest in JAK inhibition to control hyperinflammation in cancer goes back at least 15 years, and drugs that act as JAK inhibitors are already approved for use in the treatment of myelofibrosis (ruxolitinib [Jakafi], fedratinib [Inrebic]) and also for rheumatoid arthritis (upadacitinib [Rinvoq], baricitinib [Olumiant]).

“It wasn’t a huge leap for those of us with a lot of understanding of JAK inhibitors to propose taking them into the clinic to treat patients with COVID-19,” commented John Mascarenhas, MD, the leader of clinical investigation in the myeloproliferative disorders program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Mascarenhas is also principal investigator of the PRE-VENT trial, which is comparing the investigational JAK2 inhibitor pacritinib plus standard of care to standard of care alone in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19, with and without cancer. The trial is sponsored by CTI BioPharma (manufacturer of pacritinib), and is taking place at 10 sites in the United States.

In a move that may raise eyebrows, PRE-VENT skipped phase 1 and 2 and went straight to phase 3. Pacritinib has yet to receive FDA approval and has mostly been studied in myelofibrosis, an intensely inflammatory disease.

The decision was based on trials of pacritinib in hematologic malignancies and also on results from a phase 2 study in China that found possible clinical benefit for the JAK 1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in 43 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19, although results were not statistically significant, Dr. Mascarenhas explained.

Recent results from Lilly’s ACTT-2 study have provided further support for the role of JAK inhibitors in treating cytokine storm. ACTT-2 is a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, controlled trial sponsored by the NIH and NIAID comparing the JAK 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib plus the antiviral remdesivir with remdesivir alone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In September, Lilly announced that the trial met its primary endpoint of decreased time to recovery in patients who received baricitinib in combination with remdesivir.

But pacritinib’s mechanism of action may take things a step further. The drug selectively inhibits JAK2 and spares JAK1, which is important for antiviral activity in the immune system. Also, in vitro data suggests pacritinib may simultaneously reduce inflammation and fight off the virus by selectively inhibiting two additional enzymes and two other receptors.

“The rationale to me is very strong for using pacritinib,” Dr. Mascarenhas said. “I think this approach was bold but appropriate.”

The main safety concern with pacritinib could be bleeding, especially among patients on anticoagulants, Dr. Mascarenhas said. Because some patients with severe COVID-19 tend to develop blood clots, anticoagulation has become the standard of care at many institutions.

Because the trial is just beginning – only a minority of the total planned population of 358 patients has been enrolled – no interim results are available.
 

Right drug, wrong time?

IL-6 inhibition could still have a role to play in COVID-19, but the trick could be in the timing. Most of the trials so far have studied tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19, many of whom were already on ventilators. At that point, it may be too late to reverse the damage that has already taken place.

One of the main reasons tocilizumab works so well in CRS after CAR T therapy is that oncologists have learned how to use it early, often within 24 hours of fever onset. Oncologists use the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading system, which helps them identify CRS when it is easier to control.

But applying the ASTCT grading system to COVID-19 is problematic. “Almost by definition, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have low oxygen levels, which throws off the scale,” said Joshua Hill, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who has research expertise in infectious complications after CAR T therapy.

“The key is to intervene earlier to prevent damage to the lungs and other end organs. We don’t have anything magical that will reverse that damage,” Dr. Hill said.

Results from the phase 3 trial EMPACTA trial (sponsored by Genentech) seem to bear this out. EMPACTA is evaluating use of tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with less severe COVID-19 who do not yet require mechanical ventilation. The trial is notable for being the first global phase 3 trial to demonstrate efficacy for tocilizumab vs placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, and for including a high percentage of racial/ethnic minorities (85% of 389 participants), who have been hard hit by the pandemic and have historically been underrepresented in drug trials.

Last month, Roche announced that EMPACTA met its primary endpoint. Results showed that patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia who received tocilizumab plus standard of care were 44% less likely to go on mechanical ventilation or die, compared with those who received placebo plus standard of care (P = .0348), although there were no statistically significant differences in death by day 28 between tocilizumab and placebo (10.4% vs. 8.6%, P = .5146).

However, earlier administration of tocilizumab raises another issue. IL-6 and its pathway are important for clearing viral infections. Using tocilizumab in the context of an ongoing infection could raise safety issues.

Also, tocilizumab sticks around in the body for a relatively long time. In the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, it is dosed once a month, and it carries a black box warning for reactivation of tuberculosis.

Whereas results from EMPACTA showed similar rates of infection associated with tocilizumab and placebo (10% vs. 11%), at least one other study has found increased rates of superinfection in patients with severe COVID-19 who received tocilizumab. Overall, though, the drug was associated with decreased risk of death in the latter study.

A phase 2 trial called COVIDOSE is tackling the safety issue. COVIDOSE is evaluating whether low-dose tocilizumab is effective in noncritical COVID-19 patients, with the idea that lower doses could be safer. Early results published as a preprint before peer review indicated that low-dose tocilizumab (ranging from 40 mg to 200 mg) was associated with clinical improvement in 32 noncritical patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Five patients (15.6%) developed bacterial superinfections, and five (15.6%) died by 28-day follow-up, although there wasn’t a perfect “overlap” between these groups of patients. Bacterial superinfection was not the cause of death in all five patients who died, and not all patients who died developed bacterial superinfections, according to senior author Pankti Reid, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago.

Results from COVIDOSE also showed that treatment with tocilizumab did not seem to affect the ability of patients to develop antibodies against COVID-19. The results set the stage for a larger randomized, controlled trial (still ongoing) to determine the optimal dose of tocilizumab.

Still, Dr. Hill urges caution.

Many of these immunomodulators have been used only in the context of a clinical trial, or only for patients with terminal cancer and no other treatment options. In patients with cancer, these drugs have been studied and have shown an “acceptable safety profile,” according to Dr. Shah.

But this is a different situation, and when it comes to repurposing them to relatively healthy patients with COVID-19, Dr. Hill emphasized the need for careful research.

“We’re always very concerned about giving drugs that suppress the immune response if people have active infections,” Dr. Hill said. “Often times we think it makes things worse, and it typically does.”

Dr. Mascarenhas reported institutional research funding from CTI Biopharma. Dr. Hill, Dr. Staudt, Dr. Wilson, and Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the first reports emerged of “cytokine storm” in patients with severe COVID-19, all eyes turned to cancer research. Oncologists have years of experience reigning in “cytokine release syndrome” (CRS) in patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) therapies for advanced blood cancers.

There was hope that drugs used to quell CRS in patients with cancer would be effective in patients with severe COVID. But the promise of a quick fix with oncology medications has yet to be fully realized.

Part of the problem is that the two conditions, while analogous, are “not the same,” said Nirali Shah, MD, head of the hematologic malignancies section in the pediatric oncology branch at the National Cancer Institute.

“You have to understand the underlying pathophysiology, what triggers the inflammation,” Dr. Shah said.

CAR T–related CRS is caused by activated T cells in patients with cancer who often do not have an infection, she explained. In contrast, cytokine storm in COVID-19 is triggered by a viral pathogen that can drive “out of control” inflammation. These differences may explain why drugs work in the first instance, but not in the second, she added. Drugs that inhibit interleukin-6 (such as tocilizumab, sarilumab, and siltuximab) are used with great success to dampen down the CRS in patients receiving CAR therapy for blood cancers. And although trials of these agents in patients with COVID are still ongoing, initial results are disappointing.

The first global, phase 3 randomized controlled trial of tocilizumab in severe COVID-19 failed to meet its primary endpoint of improved clinical status, and it did not meet its secondary endpoint of improved mortality at week 4.

In its recent recommendations, the National Institutes of Health noted a lack of data to support the efficacy of IL-6 inhibitors in COVID-19, and recommended against their use, except as part of a clinical trial.
 

Trimming the tree vs. cutting it down

As researchers have begun to decode the immune process underlying severe COVID-19, they have turned to other cancer drugs to tame cytokine storm.

Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, and Wyndham Wilson, MD, PhD, both at the NCI, think that cytokine storm in COVID-19 is driven by macrophages, which trigger release of multiple cytokines.

For years, the pair have been studying lymphoid tumors. Dr. Staudt is chief of the lymphoid malignancies branch at the NCI, and Wilson is head of the lymphoma therapeutics section. In past work, Dr. Staudt discovered that inhibiting an enzyme called bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) dampens macrophage function.

When the pandemic began, Dr. Staudt and Dr. Wilson realized that singling out just one cytokine like IL-6 may not be enough. They thought that a more effective approach may be to target macrophages with a BTK inhibitor called acalabrutinib (Calquence), which would inhibit multiple cytokines at the same time.

Dr. Staudt likens the immune response to a tree, with the macrophages composing the tree trunk and the limbs made up of individual cytokines.

“Targeting macrophages is getting at the trunk of the problem,” he said. “You’re only cutting off the limbs with tocilizumab.”

In just 3 days, Dr. Staudt and Dr. Wilson went from concept to approval to launching a prospective, observational study. The study took place at five centers in the US, and included 19 patients hospitalized with COVID-19; the results were published in Science Immunology. Over a treatment course of 14 days, the majority of patients treated off-label with acalabrutinib improved, some within 24 hours. Eight of 11 patients on supplemental oxygen were discharged on room air. Four of eight patients on ventilators were extubated, with two of these discharged on room air. Two patients on ventilators died. No discernible toxicity was noted.

Analyses also showed increased BTK activity and elevated IL-6 levels in monocytes – precursors of macrophages – in patients with severe COVID-19, compared with healthy volunteers.

“We showed that the target of acalabrutinib was active in the immune cells of patients with severe COVID-19,” Dr. Staudt said. “So we have the target. We have the drug to hit the target. And we have an apparent clinical benefit.”

Those three things were compelling enough to launch the CALAVI phase 2 trial, an open-label, randomized, controlled trial, sponsored by AstraZeneca and the NCI, that is being conducted in the United States and internationally. It is testing acalabrutinib with best supportive care versus BSC alone in people hospitalized with COVID-19. The trial is scheduled to be completed on Nov. 26.

Preliminary insights from this trial are expected soon. “These are not insights that we will likely publish, but they are important insights that will lead to the launch of a definitive double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trial, which we hope to launch in the next month or so,” Dr. Wilson said.
 

Targeting inflammation and infection simultaneously

Other scientists are investigating inhibitors of Janus kinase (JAK), a family of enzymes that play a key role in orchestrating immune responses, particularly cytokines. Interest in JAK inhibition to control hyperinflammation in cancer goes back at least 15 years, and drugs that act as JAK inhibitors are already approved for use in the treatment of myelofibrosis (ruxolitinib [Jakafi], fedratinib [Inrebic]) and also for rheumatoid arthritis (upadacitinib [Rinvoq], baricitinib [Olumiant]).

“It wasn’t a huge leap for those of us with a lot of understanding of JAK inhibitors to propose taking them into the clinic to treat patients with COVID-19,” commented John Mascarenhas, MD, the leader of clinical investigation in the myeloproliferative disorders program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Mascarenhas is also principal investigator of the PRE-VENT trial, which is comparing the investigational JAK2 inhibitor pacritinib plus standard of care to standard of care alone in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19, with and without cancer. The trial is sponsored by CTI BioPharma (manufacturer of pacritinib), and is taking place at 10 sites in the United States.

In a move that may raise eyebrows, PRE-VENT skipped phase 1 and 2 and went straight to phase 3. Pacritinib has yet to receive FDA approval and has mostly been studied in myelofibrosis, an intensely inflammatory disease.

The decision was based on trials of pacritinib in hematologic malignancies and also on results from a phase 2 study in China that found possible clinical benefit for the JAK 1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in 43 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19, although results were not statistically significant, Dr. Mascarenhas explained.

Recent results from Lilly’s ACTT-2 study have provided further support for the role of JAK inhibitors in treating cytokine storm. ACTT-2 is a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, controlled trial sponsored by the NIH and NIAID comparing the JAK 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib plus the antiviral remdesivir with remdesivir alone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In September, Lilly announced that the trial met its primary endpoint of decreased time to recovery in patients who received baricitinib in combination with remdesivir.

But pacritinib’s mechanism of action may take things a step further. The drug selectively inhibits JAK2 and spares JAK1, which is important for antiviral activity in the immune system. Also, in vitro data suggests pacritinib may simultaneously reduce inflammation and fight off the virus by selectively inhibiting two additional enzymes and two other receptors.

“The rationale to me is very strong for using pacritinib,” Dr. Mascarenhas said. “I think this approach was bold but appropriate.”

The main safety concern with pacritinib could be bleeding, especially among patients on anticoagulants, Dr. Mascarenhas said. Because some patients with severe COVID-19 tend to develop blood clots, anticoagulation has become the standard of care at many institutions.

Because the trial is just beginning – only a minority of the total planned population of 358 patients has been enrolled – no interim results are available.
 

Right drug, wrong time?

IL-6 inhibition could still have a role to play in COVID-19, but the trick could be in the timing. Most of the trials so far have studied tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19, many of whom were already on ventilators. At that point, it may be too late to reverse the damage that has already taken place.

One of the main reasons tocilizumab works so well in CRS after CAR T therapy is that oncologists have learned how to use it early, often within 24 hours of fever onset. Oncologists use the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading system, which helps them identify CRS when it is easier to control.

But applying the ASTCT grading system to COVID-19 is problematic. “Almost by definition, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have low oxygen levels, which throws off the scale,” said Joshua Hill, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who has research expertise in infectious complications after CAR T therapy.

“The key is to intervene earlier to prevent damage to the lungs and other end organs. We don’t have anything magical that will reverse that damage,” Dr. Hill said.

Results from the phase 3 trial EMPACTA trial (sponsored by Genentech) seem to bear this out. EMPACTA is evaluating use of tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with less severe COVID-19 who do not yet require mechanical ventilation. The trial is notable for being the first global phase 3 trial to demonstrate efficacy for tocilizumab vs placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, and for including a high percentage of racial/ethnic minorities (85% of 389 participants), who have been hard hit by the pandemic and have historically been underrepresented in drug trials.

Last month, Roche announced that EMPACTA met its primary endpoint. Results showed that patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia who received tocilizumab plus standard of care were 44% less likely to go on mechanical ventilation or die, compared with those who received placebo plus standard of care (P = .0348), although there were no statistically significant differences in death by day 28 between tocilizumab and placebo (10.4% vs. 8.6%, P = .5146).

However, earlier administration of tocilizumab raises another issue. IL-6 and its pathway are important for clearing viral infections. Using tocilizumab in the context of an ongoing infection could raise safety issues.

Also, tocilizumab sticks around in the body for a relatively long time. In the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, it is dosed once a month, and it carries a black box warning for reactivation of tuberculosis.

Whereas results from EMPACTA showed similar rates of infection associated with tocilizumab and placebo (10% vs. 11%), at least one other study has found increased rates of superinfection in patients with severe COVID-19 who received tocilizumab. Overall, though, the drug was associated with decreased risk of death in the latter study.

A phase 2 trial called COVIDOSE is tackling the safety issue. COVIDOSE is evaluating whether low-dose tocilizumab is effective in noncritical COVID-19 patients, with the idea that lower doses could be safer. Early results published as a preprint before peer review indicated that low-dose tocilizumab (ranging from 40 mg to 200 mg) was associated with clinical improvement in 32 noncritical patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Five patients (15.6%) developed bacterial superinfections, and five (15.6%) died by 28-day follow-up, although there wasn’t a perfect “overlap” between these groups of patients. Bacterial superinfection was not the cause of death in all five patients who died, and not all patients who died developed bacterial superinfections, according to senior author Pankti Reid, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago.

Results from COVIDOSE also showed that treatment with tocilizumab did not seem to affect the ability of patients to develop antibodies against COVID-19. The results set the stage for a larger randomized, controlled trial (still ongoing) to determine the optimal dose of tocilizumab.

Still, Dr. Hill urges caution.

Many of these immunomodulators have been used only in the context of a clinical trial, or only for patients with terminal cancer and no other treatment options. In patients with cancer, these drugs have been studied and have shown an “acceptable safety profile,” according to Dr. Shah.

But this is a different situation, and when it comes to repurposing them to relatively healthy patients with COVID-19, Dr. Hill emphasized the need for careful research.

“We’re always very concerned about giving drugs that suppress the immune response if people have active infections,” Dr. Hill said. “Often times we think it makes things worse, and it typically does.”

Dr. Mascarenhas reported institutional research funding from CTI Biopharma. Dr. Hill, Dr. Staudt, Dr. Wilson, and Dr. Shah disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.

Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.

And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.

So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?

With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.

For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:

1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.

2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.

3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.

When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.

The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.

And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.

And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.

But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”

When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.

Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.

Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.

Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.

And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.

Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.

Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.

And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.

Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.


To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.

Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.

And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.

So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?

With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.

For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:

1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.

2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.

3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.

When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.

The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.

And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.

And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.

But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”

When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.

Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.

Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.

Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.

And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.

Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.

Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.

And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.

Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.


To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.

Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.

And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.

So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?

With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.

For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:

1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.

2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.

3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.

When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.

The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.

And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.

And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.

But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”

When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.

Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.

Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.

Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.

And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.

Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.

Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.

And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.

Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.


To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.