Renal Cell Carcinoma

Adjuvant immunotherapy with atezolizumab for patients with renal cell carcinoma who have had a nephrectomy with or without a metastasectomy, failed to improve clinical outcomes in a group of patients who are at high risk of recurrence, finds a new international study conducted across 28 countries.

The study, called IMmotion010 and published in The Lancet, was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 trial of 778 adult patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component. The study failed to meet its primary endpoint which was defined as a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo.

“Our results add to an emerging body of literature around the role of adjuvant immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma. With the longest duration of follow-up to date to our knowledge. We observed no evidence of clinical benefit in disease-free survival or overall survival with adjuvant atezolizumab in patients with high-risk localized or fully resected renal cell carcinoma,” wrote the authors who were led by Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif. “Given a growing list of trials that have not shown benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, the results call for greater attention to patient selection with this approach.”

Dr. Pal and associates conducted the study to gain more insight into the potential role of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have undergone the standard treatment of nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy. Previous studies of anti-VEGF treatments have produced mixed results, including the large phase 3 ASSURE trial, the authors wrote. “Given these mixed results, use of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma remains infrequent,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote.

However, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) a programmed death receptor-1–blocking antibody, is an immunotherapy which, in combination with axitinib, is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced RCC.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech) is approved for treatment in urothelial carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and melanoma. There are currently a number of ongoing studies that are exploring the use of atezolizumab as a treatment for renal cell carcinoma.

The study details

This new study was conducted between 2017 and 2019. It included 778 patients from 215 clinics in 28 countries who were assigned to the treatment arm (1,200 mg of IV atezolizumab (n = 390, 50%) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year, which ever came first – or, they were assigned to the placebo group (n = 388, 50%). The two groups were similar: average age 60-61, 72%-74% male, 78%-83% white, and 36%-37% based in North America. Most patients, (92%-93%) had clear cell cancer, and 64%-65% were at pathological disease stage T2 or T3a.

The 3-year disease-free survival rate at 36 months was 65.0% (95% confidence interval, 59.9-70.2) in the treatment group and 62.7% (95% CI, 57.5-67.9) in the placebo group. At follow-up at 44.7 months, there was no statistically significant difference in median disease-free survival between atezolizumab (57.2 months; 95% CI, 44.6 to not evaluable) and placebo (49.5 months; 95% CI, 47.4 to not evaluable).

While there were no deaths attributable to treatment, 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo experienced a serious adverse event.

“The results of IMmotion010 do not support the use of adjuvant atezolizumab for fully resected renal cell carcinoma. Future work will include exploration of clinical-based or biomarker-based subsets that might derive benefit from this approach,” the authors wrote.

The researchers acknowledge their findings contrast with those of the KEYNOTE-564 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab after nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-564 reported a disease-free survival benefit of over 24 months and in an analysis done at 30 months. But in KEYNOTE-564, the study comprised only 6% of patients with M1 no evidence of disease. And, it included only patients with synchronous metastases or metastases resected within 1 year of nephrectomy. In the new study, 14% of patients had M1 no evidence of disease, and it included both synchronous and metachronous disease with recurrence within 1year of surgery.

Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is considered optional for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk operable clear cell renal cell carcinoma per European Society for Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology guidelines because of the lack of confirmed overall survival benefit and toxicity-related considerations associated with immunotherapy.

“These factors must be considered in the adjuvant setting as, following nephrectomy, patients are cancer free and might be cured by surgery alone. As such, additional trials are needed to clarify the role of adjuvant immunotherapy in this disease space,” the authors wrote.

What’s next? “Biomarker work is underway to determine whether tumor genomic characteristics or circulating biomarkers can identify patient populations who derive benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote. “There is precedent for tissue-based adjuvant therapy selection in other diseases, such as HER2-based and endocrine receptor–based approaches in breast cancer and EGFR mutation–directed therapy in lung cancer.”

The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. The academic authors of the study collaborated with F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech on all facets of the trial.

Adjuvant immunotherapy with atezolizumab for patients with renal cell carcinoma who have had a nephrectomy with or without a metastasectomy, failed to improve clinical outcomes in a group of patients who are at high risk of recurrence, finds a new international study conducted across 28 countries.

The study, called IMmotion010 and published in The Lancet, was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 trial of 778 adult patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component. The study failed to meet its primary endpoint which was defined as a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo.

“Our results add to an emerging body of literature around the role of adjuvant immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma. With the longest duration of follow-up to date to our knowledge. We observed no evidence of clinical benefit in disease-free survival or overall survival with adjuvant atezolizumab in patients with high-risk localized or fully resected renal cell carcinoma,” wrote the authors who were led by Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif. “Given a growing list of trials that have not shown benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, the results call for greater attention to patient selection with this approach.”

Dr. Pal and associates conducted the study to gain more insight into the potential role of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have undergone the standard treatment of nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy. Previous studies of anti-VEGF treatments have produced mixed results, including the large phase 3 ASSURE trial, the authors wrote. “Given these mixed results, use of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma remains infrequent,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote.

However, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) a programmed death receptor-1–blocking antibody, is an immunotherapy which, in combination with axitinib, is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced RCC.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech) is approved for treatment in urothelial carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and melanoma. There are currently a number of ongoing studies that are exploring the use of atezolizumab as a treatment for renal cell carcinoma.

The study details

This new study was conducted between 2017 and 2019. It included 778 patients from 215 clinics in 28 countries who were assigned to the treatment arm (1,200 mg of IV atezolizumab (n = 390, 50%) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year, which ever came first – or, they were assigned to the placebo group (n = 388, 50%). The two groups were similar: average age 60-61, 72%-74% male, 78%-83% white, and 36%-37% based in North America. Most patients, (92%-93%) had clear cell cancer, and 64%-65% were at pathological disease stage T2 or T3a.

The 3-year disease-free survival rate at 36 months was 65.0% (95% confidence interval, 59.9-70.2) in the treatment group and 62.7% (95% CI, 57.5-67.9) in the placebo group. At follow-up at 44.7 months, there was no statistically significant difference in median disease-free survival between atezolizumab (57.2 months; 95% CI, 44.6 to not evaluable) and placebo (49.5 months; 95% CI, 47.4 to not evaluable).

While there were no deaths attributable to treatment, 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo experienced a serious adverse event.

“The results of IMmotion010 do not support the use of adjuvant atezolizumab for fully resected renal cell carcinoma. Future work will include exploration of clinical-based or biomarker-based subsets that might derive benefit from this approach,” the authors wrote.

The researchers acknowledge their findings contrast with those of the KEYNOTE-564 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab after nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-564 reported a disease-free survival benefit of over 24 months and in an analysis done at 30 months. But in KEYNOTE-564, the study comprised only 6% of patients with M1 no evidence of disease. And, it included only patients with synchronous metastases or metastases resected within 1 year of nephrectomy. In the new study, 14% of patients had M1 no evidence of disease, and it included both synchronous and metachronous disease with recurrence within 1year of surgery.

Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is considered optional for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk operable clear cell renal cell carcinoma per European Society for Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology guidelines because of the lack of confirmed overall survival benefit and toxicity-related considerations associated with immunotherapy.

“These factors must be considered in the adjuvant setting as, following nephrectomy, patients are cancer free and might be cured by surgery alone. As such, additional trials are needed to clarify the role of adjuvant immunotherapy in this disease space,” the authors wrote.

What’s next? “Biomarker work is underway to determine whether tumor genomic characteristics or circulating biomarkers can identify patient populations who derive benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote. “There is precedent for tissue-based adjuvant therapy selection in other diseases, such as HER2-based and endocrine receptor–based approaches in breast cancer and EGFR mutation–directed therapy in lung cancer.”

The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. The academic authors of the study collaborated with F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech on all facets of the trial.

Adjuvant immunotherapy with atezolizumab for patients with renal cell carcinoma who have had a nephrectomy with or without a metastasectomy, failed to improve clinical outcomes in a group of patients who are at high risk of recurrence, finds a new international study conducted across 28 countries.

The study, called IMmotion010 and published in The Lancet, was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 trial of 778 adult patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component. The study failed to meet its primary endpoint which was defined as a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo.

“Our results add to an emerging body of literature around the role of adjuvant immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma. With the longest duration of follow-up to date to our knowledge. We observed no evidence of clinical benefit in disease-free survival or overall survival with adjuvant atezolizumab in patients with high-risk localized or fully resected renal cell carcinoma,” wrote the authors who were led by Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif. “Given a growing list of trials that have not shown benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, the results call for greater attention to patient selection with this approach.”

Dr. Pal and associates conducted the study to gain more insight into the potential role of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have undergone the standard treatment of nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy. Previous studies of anti-VEGF treatments have produced mixed results, including the large phase 3 ASSURE trial, the authors wrote. “Given these mixed results, use of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma remains infrequent,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote.

However, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) a programmed death receptor-1–blocking antibody, is an immunotherapy which, in combination with axitinib, is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced RCC.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech) is approved for treatment in urothelial carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and melanoma. There are currently a number of ongoing studies that are exploring the use of atezolizumab as a treatment for renal cell carcinoma.

The study details

This new study was conducted between 2017 and 2019. It included 778 patients from 215 clinics in 28 countries who were assigned to the treatment arm (1,200 mg of IV atezolizumab (n = 390, 50%) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year, which ever came first – or, they were assigned to the placebo group (n = 388, 50%). The two groups were similar: average age 60-61, 72%-74% male, 78%-83% white, and 36%-37% based in North America. Most patients, (92%-93%) had clear cell cancer, and 64%-65% were at pathological disease stage T2 or T3a.

The 3-year disease-free survival rate at 36 months was 65.0% (95% confidence interval, 59.9-70.2) in the treatment group and 62.7% (95% CI, 57.5-67.9) in the placebo group. At follow-up at 44.7 months, there was no statistically significant difference in median disease-free survival between atezolizumab (57.2 months; 95% CI, 44.6 to not evaluable) and placebo (49.5 months; 95% CI, 47.4 to not evaluable).

While there were no deaths attributable to treatment, 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo experienced a serious adverse event.

“The results of IMmotion010 do not support the use of adjuvant atezolizumab for fully resected renal cell carcinoma. Future work will include exploration of clinical-based or biomarker-based subsets that might derive benefit from this approach,” the authors wrote.

The researchers acknowledge their findings contrast with those of the KEYNOTE-564 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab after nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-564 reported a disease-free survival benefit of over 24 months and in an analysis done at 30 months. But in KEYNOTE-564, the study comprised only 6% of patients with M1 no evidence of disease. And, it included only patients with synchronous metastases or metastases resected within 1 year of nephrectomy. In the new study, 14% of patients had M1 no evidence of disease, and it included both synchronous and metachronous disease with recurrence within 1year of surgery.

Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is considered optional for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk operable clear cell renal cell carcinoma per European Society for Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology guidelines because of the lack of confirmed overall survival benefit and toxicity-related considerations associated with immunotherapy.

“These factors must be considered in the adjuvant setting as, following nephrectomy, patients are cancer free and might be cured by surgery alone. As such, additional trials are needed to clarify the role of adjuvant immunotherapy in this disease space,” the authors wrote.

What’s next? “Biomarker work is underway to determine whether tumor genomic characteristics or circulating biomarkers can identify patient populations who derive benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote. “There is precedent for tissue-based adjuvant therapy selection in other diseases, such as HER2-based and endocrine receptor–based approaches in breast cancer and EGFR mutation–directed therapy in lung cancer.”

The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. The academic authors of the study collaborated with F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech on all facets of the trial.

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PARIS – New disappointing results from a trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent nephrectomy contrast with those from a previous trial that showed benefit with another agent.

The new results, from CheckMate 914, show that adjuvant treatment with the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS), compared with placebo.

The finding was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

CheckMate 914 “did not meet the primary endpoint,” study presenter Robert J. Motzer, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a press conference.

The results contrast with those seen with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in the same setting, where the drug achieved a 32% reduction in risk of recurrence or death over placebo in KEYNOTE-564. This led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granting approval for the drug as adjuvant treatment following surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma at intermediate or high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Another trial of adjuvant immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma, also presented at ESMO 2022, the IMmotion010 trial with adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq), also did not show any clinical benefit over placebo.

However, Dr. Motzer said that despite both of these new trials showing no benefit, “I don’t think it takes away from standard of care pembrolizumab” in this setting.

There is a great need for adjuvant therapy for patients who undergo surgery, Dr. Motzer commented. The standard treatment for stage I-III localized nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma is radical or partial nephrectomy, but there remains a “substantial risk” of relapse after surgery, occurring in up to 50% of patients.

In the past, the standard of care for these patients would be watching and waiting and “hoping that the patient doesn’t relapse,” he said, and if they did, then “we would treat accordingly for metastatic disease.”
 

Differences between trials

When asked about the contrast between the latest trial with the adjuvant nivolumab-ipilimumab combination and the earlier trial with adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Motzer told this news organization that there are differences in the designs of the two studies. “Although they are both global phase 2 trials ... [there are] some differences in the patient population.”

However, the “main differences” are the duration, intensity, and tolerability of the treatment regimens. “I suspect that’s impacted on the outcome of our trial,” he said, as “many of our patients didn’t complete even that 6 months of the more toxic immunotherapy [nivolumab-ipilimumab combination].”

Dr. Motzer also noted that, compared with the metastatic setting, patients “do not tolerate therapy as well” in the adjuvant setting. Consequently, the risk-benefit of a drug is “slightly different ... as we have to be much more concerned about toxicity.”

In addition, he said, “our trial also used these kind-of gross clinical features that were developed years ago” to select patients, but now “there’s other much more refined techniques” that look at the underlying biological signatures “to identify who responds to immunotherapy.”

“So I think we have to do a deep dive into the biology in this trial and in the Merck trial [of pembrolizumab] to see if we can better define who is going to relapse and who is going to benefit,” he said.

Commenting on the new results, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, also wondered whether differences in trial design and study populations could explain the divergent results between the CheckMate and KEYNOTE trials.

“Investigators will need to look in detail at subpopulations and biomarkers to guide treatment decisions and trial design for current and future patients,” he added.

Dr. Berthold said he agrees that pembrolizumab remains standard of care, but “I’m not really sure that we have really to offer all patients” the drug.

He explained that, on the one hand, there is the risk of over-treating many patients, depending on their stage, and on the other hand, “many patients who get pembrolizumab actually do progress.”

In addition, there is the question of the treatment sequence in patients who are already exposed to immunotherapy and when to start tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as the much broader issue of the lack of long-term overall survival data with pembrolizumab.

Dr. Berthold noted the issue of whether the high treatment discontinuation rate in CheckMate 914 affected the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab raises the question of whether, from an immunological point of view, 1 year of pembrolizumab is more effective than 3 months of the combination therapy.

“I think it might be one of the explanations,” he said, adding, however, that these are just “hypotheses” at this stage.
 

Details of the new results

Previous results with the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination, from the CheckMate 214 trial in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, had demonstrated that upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab offered significantly longer treatment-free survival than the VEGF inhibitor sunitinib. The “striking results” from that trial indicated the combination was not only associated with a survival benefit, but also “high response rates, durable responses, complete responses, and even treatment responses that continue after treatment is discontinued,” Dr. Motzer commented.

So his team set out to test the combination in the adjuvant setting in the CheckMate 914 trial, designed in two parts: Part A, comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab with placebo, and Part B, adding nivolumab monotherapy as another comparator.

Reporting on Part A of the trial, Dr. Motzer explained that they included 816 patients with renal cell carcinoma who had undergone radical or partial nephrectomy with negative surgical margins and had a predominantly clear cell histology.

They also selected patients based on their pathologic TNM staging, choosing “high-risk” individuals, Dr. Motzer explained, but who nevertheless had no evidence of residual disease or distant metastases following nephrectomy.

Between 4 and 12 weeks after surgery, patients were randomized to receive 12 doses of nivolumab plus four doses of ipilimumab or matched placebos for an expected treatment duration of 24 weeks.

The median age of patients was 58-59 years, and approximately 71% were men. By far the most common type of surgery was radical nephrectomy, with 93%, and Dr. Motzer noted that most patients (77%-78%) had pT3 disease without nodal involvement.

After a median follow-up of 37.0 months, there was no significant difference between groups in the primary endpoint of DFS, as assessed by blinded independent central review.

Median DFS was not reached for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 50.7 months for placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.92 (P = .5347). At 24 months, DFS was 76.4% with the combination therapy versus 74.0% for placebo.

Subgroup analysis did not reveal any patient groups that significantly benefitted from the combination therapy, although there was a signal of greater benefit in those with other than pT3 disease.

While tumors with sarcomatoid features appeared to have a significant benefit from nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy, they represented only 5% of the study population.

During his presentation, Dr. Motzer showed the median duration of therapy was 5.1 months in both groups, but only 57% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab patients completed all doses versus 89% of those assigned to placebo.

In addition, 33% of patients given nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinued due to study drug toxicity and 29% had a treatment-related adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation. This compared with only 1% of patients for both outcomes with placebo.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the combination therapy group were pruritus (27%), fatigue (25%), diarrhea (20%), rash (19%), hyperthyroidism (16%), and hypothyroidism (16%), and the vast majority of events were grade 1-2.

Dr. Motzer said that, following these negative results, they are “certainly digging deeper into the details to see which particular groups may have benefited and when toxicity occurred.

Then, more importantly, the team will look out for the results of Part B of the trial to assess the impact of nivolumab monotherapy. “I’m hoping it’s better tolerated,” he said.

Discussant James Larkin, MD, PhD, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden, London, said the results from CheckMate 914 came “as a bit of a surprise.”

As did Dr. Motzer, Dr. Larkin singled out the high number of patients who could not complete the full dosing schedule and discontinued treatment.

He added that, while one has to be “cautious” when comparing trials, KEYNOTE-564 was “relatively similar” in design, and it’s “unlikely there’s any significant difference in activity” between the two drugs.

Dr. Larkin also believes data from Part B of CheckMate 914 will be “illuminating.”

There are nevertheless a number of outstanding questions about the results from Part A, he said, the main one being how to better select patients who might respond to the combination, which currently is not possible due to the lack of clinically relevant biomarkers.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Motzer has disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

PARIS – New disappointing results from a trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent nephrectomy contrast with those from a previous trial that showed benefit with another agent.

The new results, from CheckMate 914, show that adjuvant treatment with the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS), compared with placebo.

The finding was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

CheckMate 914 “did not meet the primary endpoint,” study presenter Robert J. Motzer, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a press conference.

The results contrast with those seen with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in the same setting, where the drug achieved a 32% reduction in risk of recurrence or death over placebo in KEYNOTE-564. This led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granting approval for the drug as adjuvant treatment following surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma at intermediate or high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Another trial of adjuvant immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma, also presented at ESMO 2022, the IMmotion010 trial with adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq), also did not show any clinical benefit over placebo.

However, Dr. Motzer said that despite both of these new trials showing no benefit, “I don’t think it takes away from standard of care pembrolizumab” in this setting.

There is a great need for adjuvant therapy for patients who undergo surgery, Dr. Motzer commented. The standard treatment for stage I-III localized nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma is radical or partial nephrectomy, but there remains a “substantial risk” of relapse after surgery, occurring in up to 50% of patients.

In the past, the standard of care for these patients would be watching and waiting and “hoping that the patient doesn’t relapse,” he said, and if they did, then “we would treat accordingly for metastatic disease.”
 

Differences between trials

When asked about the contrast between the latest trial with the adjuvant nivolumab-ipilimumab combination and the earlier trial with adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Motzer told this news organization that there are differences in the designs of the two studies. “Although they are both global phase 2 trials ... [there are] some differences in the patient population.”

However, the “main differences” are the duration, intensity, and tolerability of the treatment regimens. “I suspect that’s impacted on the outcome of our trial,” he said, as “many of our patients didn’t complete even that 6 months of the more toxic immunotherapy [nivolumab-ipilimumab combination].”

Dr. Motzer also noted that, compared with the metastatic setting, patients “do not tolerate therapy as well” in the adjuvant setting. Consequently, the risk-benefit of a drug is “slightly different ... as we have to be much more concerned about toxicity.”

In addition, he said, “our trial also used these kind-of gross clinical features that were developed years ago” to select patients, but now “there’s other much more refined techniques” that look at the underlying biological signatures “to identify who responds to immunotherapy.”

“So I think we have to do a deep dive into the biology in this trial and in the Merck trial [of pembrolizumab] to see if we can better define who is going to relapse and who is going to benefit,” he said.

Commenting on the new results, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, also wondered whether differences in trial design and study populations could explain the divergent results between the CheckMate and KEYNOTE trials.

“Investigators will need to look in detail at subpopulations and biomarkers to guide treatment decisions and trial design for current and future patients,” he added.

Dr. Berthold said he agrees that pembrolizumab remains standard of care, but “I’m not really sure that we have really to offer all patients” the drug.

He explained that, on the one hand, there is the risk of over-treating many patients, depending on their stage, and on the other hand, “many patients who get pembrolizumab actually do progress.”

In addition, there is the question of the treatment sequence in patients who are already exposed to immunotherapy and when to start tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as the much broader issue of the lack of long-term overall survival data with pembrolizumab.

Dr. Berthold noted the issue of whether the high treatment discontinuation rate in CheckMate 914 affected the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab raises the question of whether, from an immunological point of view, 1 year of pembrolizumab is more effective than 3 months of the combination therapy.

“I think it might be one of the explanations,” he said, adding, however, that these are just “hypotheses” at this stage.
 

Details of the new results

Previous results with the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination, from the CheckMate 214 trial in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, had demonstrated that upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab offered significantly longer treatment-free survival than the VEGF inhibitor sunitinib. The “striking results” from that trial indicated the combination was not only associated with a survival benefit, but also “high response rates, durable responses, complete responses, and even treatment responses that continue after treatment is discontinued,” Dr. Motzer commented.

So his team set out to test the combination in the adjuvant setting in the CheckMate 914 trial, designed in two parts: Part A, comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab with placebo, and Part B, adding nivolumab monotherapy as another comparator.

Reporting on Part A of the trial, Dr. Motzer explained that they included 816 patients with renal cell carcinoma who had undergone radical or partial nephrectomy with negative surgical margins and had a predominantly clear cell histology.

They also selected patients based on their pathologic TNM staging, choosing “high-risk” individuals, Dr. Motzer explained, but who nevertheless had no evidence of residual disease or distant metastases following nephrectomy.

Between 4 and 12 weeks after surgery, patients were randomized to receive 12 doses of nivolumab plus four doses of ipilimumab or matched placebos for an expected treatment duration of 24 weeks.

The median age of patients was 58-59 years, and approximately 71% were men. By far the most common type of surgery was radical nephrectomy, with 93%, and Dr. Motzer noted that most patients (77%-78%) had pT3 disease without nodal involvement.

After a median follow-up of 37.0 months, there was no significant difference between groups in the primary endpoint of DFS, as assessed by blinded independent central review.

Median DFS was not reached for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 50.7 months for placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.92 (P = .5347). At 24 months, DFS was 76.4% with the combination therapy versus 74.0% for placebo.

Subgroup analysis did not reveal any patient groups that significantly benefitted from the combination therapy, although there was a signal of greater benefit in those with other than pT3 disease.

While tumors with sarcomatoid features appeared to have a significant benefit from nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy, they represented only 5% of the study population.

During his presentation, Dr. Motzer showed the median duration of therapy was 5.1 months in both groups, but only 57% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab patients completed all doses versus 89% of those assigned to placebo.

In addition, 33% of patients given nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinued due to study drug toxicity and 29% had a treatment-related adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation. This compared with only 1% of patients for both outcomes with placebo.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the combination therapy group were pruritus (27%), fatigue (25%), diarrhea (20%), rash (19%), hyperthyroidism (16%), and hypothyroidism (16%), and the vast majority of events were grade 1-2.

Dr. Motzer said that, following these negative results, they are “certainly digging deeper into the details to see which particular groups may have benefited and when toxicity occurred.

Then, more importantly, the team will look out for the results of Part B of the trial to assess the impact of nivolumab monotherapy. “I’m hoping it’s better tolerated,” he said.

Discussant James Larkin, MD, PhD, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden, London, said the results from CheckMate 914 came “as a bit of a surprise.”

As did Dr. Motzer, Dr. Larkin singled out the high number of patients who could not complete the full dosing schedule and discontinued treatment.

He added that, while one has to be “cautious” when comparing trials, KEYNOTE-564 was “relatively similar” in design, and it’s “unlikely there’s any significant difference in activity” between the two drugs.

Dr. Larkin also believes data from Part B of CheckMate 914 will be “illuminating.”

There are nevertheless a number of outstanding questions about the results from Part A, he said, the main one being how to better select patients who might respond to the combination, which currently is not possible due to the lack of clinically relevant biomarkers.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Motzer has disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

PARIS – New disappointing results from a trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent nephrectomy contrast with those from a previous trial that showed benefit with another agent.

The new results, from CheckMate 914, show that adjuvant treatment with the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS), compared with placebo.

The finding was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

CheckMate 914 “did not meet the primary endpoint,” study presenter Robert J. Motzer, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a press conference.

The results contrast with those seen with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in the same setting, where the drug achieved a 32% reduction in risk of recurrence or death over placebo in KEYNOTE-564. This led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granting approval for the drug as adjuvant treatment following surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma at intermediate or high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Another trial of adjuvant immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma, also presented at ESMO 2022, the IMmotion010 trial with adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq), also did not show any clinical benefit over placebo.

However, Dr. Motzer said that despite both of these new trials showing no benefit, “I don’t think it takes away from standard of care pembrolizumab” in this setting.

There is a great need for adjuvant therapy for patients who undergo surgery, Dr. Motzer commented. The standard treatment for stage I-III localized nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma is radical or partial nephrectomy, but there remains a “substantial risk” of relapse after surgery, occurring in up to 50% of patients.

In the past, the standard of care for these patients would be watching and waiting and “hoping that the patient doesn’t relapse,” he said, and if they did, then “we would treat accordingly for metastatic disease.”
 

Differences between trials

When asked about the contrast between the latest trial with the adjuvant nivolumab-ipilimumab combination and the earlier trial with adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Motzer told this news organization that there are differences in the designs of the two studies. “Although they are both global phase 2 trials ... [there are] some differences in the patient population.”

However, the “main differences” are the duration, intensity, and tolerability of the treatment regimens. “I suspect that’s impacted on the outcome of our trial,” he said, as “many of our patients didn’t complete even that 6 months of the more toxic immunotherapy [nivolumab-ipilimumab combination].”

Dr. Motzer also noted that, compared with the metastatic setting, patients “do not tolerate therapy as well” in the adjuvant setting. Consequently, the risk-benefit of a drug is “slightly different ... as we have to be much more concerned about toxicity.”

In addition, he said, “our trial also used these kind-of gross clinical features that were developed years ago” to select patients, but now “there’s other much more refined techniques” that look at the underlying biological signatures “to identify who responds to immunotherapy.”

“So I think we have to do a deep dive into the biology in this trial and in the Merck trial [of pembrolizumab] to see if we can better define who is going to relapse and who is going to benefit,” he said.

Commenting on the new results, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, also wondered whether differences in trial design and study populations could explain the divergent results between the CheckMate and KEYNOTE trials.

“Investigators will need to look in detail at subpopulations and biomarkers to guide treatment decisions and trial design for current and future patients,” he added.

Dr. Berthold said he agrees that pembrolizumab remains standard of care, but “I’m not really sure that we have really to offer all patients” the drug.

He explained that, on the one hand, there is the risk of over-treating many patients, depending on their stage, and on the other hand, “many patients who get pembrolizumab actually do progress.”

In addition, there is the question of the treatment sequence in patients who are already exposed to immunotherapy and when to start tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as the much broader issue of the lack of long-term overall survival data with pembrolizumab.

Dr. Berthold noted the issue of whether the high treatment discontinuation rate in CheckMate 914 affected the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab raises the question of whether, from an immunological point of view, 1 year of pembrolizumab is more effective than 3 months of the combination therapy.

“I think it might be one of the explanations,” he said, adding, however, that these are just “hypotheses” at this stage.
 

Details of the new results

Previous results with the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination, from the CheckMate 214 trial in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, had demonstrated that upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab offered significantly longer treatment-free survival than the VEGF inhibitor sunitinib. The “striking results” from that trial indicated the combination was not only associated with a survival benefit, but also “high response rates, durable responses, complete responses, and even treatment responses that continue after treatment is discontinued,” Dr. Motzer commented.

So his team set out to test the combination in the adjuvant setting in the CheckMate 914 trial, designed in two parts: Part A, comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab with placebo, and Part B, adding nivolumab monotherapy as another comparator.

Reporting on Part A of the trial, Dr. Motzer explained that they included 816 patients with renal cell carcinoma who had undergone radical or partial nephrectomy with negative surgical margins and had a predominantly clear cell histology.

They also selected patients based on their pathologic TNM staging, choosing “high-risk” individuals, Dr. Motzer explained, but who nevertheless had no evidence of residual disease or distant metastases following nephrectomy.

Between 4 and 12 weeks after surgery, patients were randomized to receive 12 doses of nivolumab plus four doses of ipilimumab or matched placebos for an expected treatment duration of 24 weeks.

The median age of patients was 58-59 years, and approximately 71% were men. By far the most common type of surgery was radical nephrectomy, with 93%, and Dr. Motzer noted that most patients (77%-78%) had pT3 disease without nodal involvement.

After a median follow-up of 37.0 months, there was no significant difference between groups in the primary endpoint of DFS, as assessed by blinded independent central review.

Median DFS was not reached for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 50.7 months for placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.92 (P = .5347). At 24 months, DFS was 76.4% with the combination therapy versus 74.0% for placebo.

Subgroup analysis did not reveal any patient groups that significantly benefitted from the combination therapy, although there was a signal of greater benefit in those with other than pT3 disease.

While tumors with sarcomatoid features appeared to have a significant benefit from nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy, they represented only 5% of the study population.

During his presentation, Dr. Motzer showed the median duration of therapy was 5.1 months in both groups, but only 57% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab patients completed all doses versus 89% of those assigned to placebo.

In addition, 33% of patients given nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinued due to study drug toxicity and 29% had a treatment-related adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation. This compared with only 1% of patients for both outcomes with placebo.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the combination therapy group were pruritus (27%), fatigue (25%), diarrhea (20%), rash (19%), hyperthyroidism (16%), and hypothyroidism (16%), and the vast majority of events were grade 1-2.

Dr. Motzer said that, following these negative results, they are “certainly digging deeper into the details to see which particular groups may have benefited and when toxicity occurred.

Then, more importantly, the team will look out for the results of Part B of the trial to assess the impact of nivolumab monotherapy. “I’m hoping it’s better tolerated,” he said.

Discussant James Larkin, MD, PhD, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden, London, said the results from CheckMate 914 came “as a bit of a surprise.”

As did Dr. Motzer, Dr. Larkin singled out the high number of patients who could not complete the full dosing schedule and discontinued treatment.

He added that, while one has to be “cautious” when comparing trials, KEYNOTE-564 was “relatively similar” in design, and it’s “unlikely there’s any significant difference in activity” between the two drugs.

Dr. Larkin also believes data from Part B of CheckMate 914 will be “illuminating.”

There are nevertheless a number of outstanding questions about the results from Part A, he said, the main one being how to better select patients who might respond to the combination, which currently is not possible due to the lack of clinically relevant biomarkers.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Motzer has disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

High body mass index (BMI) values are associated with higher survival among metastatic cancer patients treated with first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the relationship was only present in males.

That is the conclusion of a new retrospective analysis presented during a poster session given at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. The study sought to better understand ICI outcomes. “These are complex new treatments and, because they harness the immune system, no two patients are likely to respond in the same way. BMI has previously been associated with improved survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the reasons behind this observation, and the implications for treatment are unknown, as is whether this observation is specific for patients with only certain types of cancers,” study author Dwight Owen, MD, said in an email.

He pointed out that the retrospective nature of the findings means that they have no immediate clinical implications. “The reason for the discrepancy in males remains unclear. Although our study included a relatively large number of patients, it is a heterogenous cohort and there may be confounding factors that we haven’t recognized, so these findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts,” said Dr. Owen, a medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

Asked if there is a potential biological explanation for a difference between males and females, Dr. Owen said that this is an area of intense research. One recent study examined whether androgen could help explain why men are more likely than women to both develop and have more aggressive nonreproductive cancers. They concluded that androgen receptor signaling may be leading to loss of effector and proliferative potential of CD8+ T cells in the tumor microenvironment. Once exhausted, these cells do not respond well to stimulation that can occur after ICI treatment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, cancer cachexia is also a key subject of study. It is characterized by weight loss and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. A cachexia mouse model found that weight loss can lead to more clearance of immune checkpoint antibodies.

Still, much more work needs to be done. “For now, how BMI, obesity, and cachexia relate to other factors, for instance the microbiome and tumor immunogenicity, are still not fully understood,” Dr. Owen said.
 

The study data

The researchers analyzed data from 688 patients with metastatic cancer treated at their center between 2011 and 2017. 94% were White and 5% were Black. 41% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. The mean BMI was 28.8 kg/m²; 40% of patients had melanoma, 23% had non–small cell lung cancer, 10% had renal cancer, and 27% had another form of cancer.

For every unit decrease in BMI, the researchers observed a 1.8% decrease in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.982; P = .007). Patients with a BMI of 40 or above had better survival than all other patients grouped by 5 BMI increments (that is, 35-40, 30-35, etc.). When separated by sex, males had a significant decrease in mortality for every increase in BMI unit (HR, 0.964; P = .004), but there was no significant difference among women (HR, 1.003; P = .706). The relationship in men held up after adjustment for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, line of therapy, and cancer type (HR, 0.979; P = .0308). The researchers also looked at a separate cohort of 185 normal weight and 15 obese (BMI ≥ 40) NSCLC patients. Median survival was 27.5 months in the obese group and 9.1 months in the normal weight group (HR, 0.474; 95% CI, 0.232-0.969).

Dr. Owen has received research funding through his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Palobiofarma, and Onc.AI.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

PARIS – If results of phase 3, randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for cancer drug approvals, then single-arm trials are at best a bronze or even brass standard, with results that should only be used, under certain conditions, for accelerated approvals that should then be followed by confirmatory studies.

In fact, many drugs approved over the last decade based solely on data from single-arm trials have been subsequently withdrawn when put through the rigors of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial, according to Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Single-arm trials are not meant to provide confirmatory evidence sufficient for approval; However, that ship has sailed, and we have several drugs that are approved on the basis of single-arm trials, but we need to make sure that those approvals are accelerated or conditional approvals, not regular approval,” he said in a presentation included in a special session on drug approvals at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

“We should not allow premature regular approval based on single-arm trials, because once a drug gets conditional approval, access is not an issue. Patients will have access to the drug anyway, but we should ensure that robust evidence follows, and long-term follow-up data are needed to develop confidence in the efficacy outcomes that are seen in single-arm trials,” he said.

In many cases, single-arm trials are large enough or of long enough duration that investigators could have reasonably performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the first place, Dr. Gyawali added.
 

Why do single-arm trials?

The term “single-arm registration trial” is something of an oxymoron, he said, noting that the purpose of such trials should be whether to take the drug to a phase 3, randomized trial. But as authors of a 2019 study in JAMA Network Open showed, of a sample of phase 3 RCTs, 42% did not have a prior phase 2 trial, and 28% had a negative phase 2 trial. Single-arm trials may be acceptable for conditional drug approvals if all of the following conditions are met:

• A RCT is not possible because the disease is rare or randomization would be unethical.
• The safety of the drug is established and its potential benefits outweigh its risks.
• The drug is associated with a high and durable overall or objective response rate.
• The mechanism of action is supported by a strong scientific rationale, and if the drug may meet an unmet medical need.

Survival endpoints won’t do

Efficacy endpoints typically used in RCTs, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) can be misleading because they may be a result of the natural history of the disease and not the drug being tested, whereas ORRs are almost certainly reflective of the action of the drug itself, because spontaneous tumor regression is a rare phenomenon, Dr. Gyawali said.

He cautioned, however, that the ORR of placebo is not zero percent. For example in a 2018 study of sorafenib (Nexavar) versus placebo for advanced or refractory desmoid tumors, the ORR with the active drug was 33%, and the ORR for placebo was 20%.

It’s also open to question, he said, what constitutes an acceptably high ORR and duration of response, pointing to Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of an indication for nivolumab (Opdivo) for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that had progressed on sorafenib. In the single-arm trial used as the basis for approval, the ORRs as assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to the results was 14.3%.

“So, nivolumab in hepatocellular cancer was approved on the basis of a response rate lower than that of placebo, albeit in a different tumor. But the point I’m trying to show here is we don’t have a good definition of what is a good response rate,” he said.

In July 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb voluntarily withdrew the HCC indication for nivolumab, following negative results of the CheckMate 459 trial and a 5-4 vote against continuing the accelerated approval.
 

On second thought ...

Citing data compiled by Nathan I. Cherny, MD, from Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Dr. Gyawali noted that 58 of 161 FDA approvals from 2017 to 2021 of drugs for adult solid tumors were based on single-arm trials. Of the 58 drugs, 39 received accelerated approvals, and 19 received regular approvals; of the 39 that received accelerated approvals, 4 were subsequently withdrawn, 8 were converted to regular approvals, and the remainder continued as accelerated approvals.

Interestingly, the median response rate among all the drugs was 40%, and did not differ between the type of approval received, suggesting that response rates are not predictive of whether a drug will receive a conditional or full-fledged go-ahead.
 

What’s rare and safe?

The definition of a rare disease in the United States is one that affects fewer than 40,000 per year, and in Europe it’s an incidence rate of less than 6 per 100,000 population, Dr. Gyawali noted. But he argued that even non–small cell lung cancer, the most common form of cancer in the world, could be considered rare if it is broken down into subtypes that are treated according to specific mutations that may occur in a relatively small number of patients.

He also noted that a specific drug’s safety, one of the most important criteria for granting approval to a drug based on a single-arm trial, can be difficult to judge without adequate controls for comparison.
 

Cherry-picking patients

Winette van der Graaf, MD, president of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, who attended the session where Dr. Gyawali’s presentation was played, said in an interview that clinicians should cast a critical eye on how trials are designed and conducted, including patient selection and choice of endpoints.

“One of the most obvious things to be concerned about is that we’re still having patients with good performance status enrolled, mostly PS 0 or 1, so how representative are these clinical trials for the patients we see in front of us on a daily basis?” she said.

“The other question is radiological endpoints, which we focus on with OS and PFS are most important for patients, especially if you consider that if patients may have asymptomatic disease, and we are only treating them with potentially toxic medication, what are we doing for them? Median overall survival when you look at all of these trials is only 4 months, so we really need to take into account how we affect patients in clinical trials,” she added.

Dr. van der Graaf emphasized that clinical trial investigators need to more routinely incorporate quality of life measures and other patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial results to help regulators and clinicians in practice get a better sense of the true clinical benefit of a new drug.

Dr. Gyawali did not disclose a funding source for his presentation. He reported consulting fees from Vivio Health and research grants from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. van der Graaf reported no conflicts of interest.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

PARIS – Adding cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Exelixis) to standard-of-care immunotherapy with nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) markedly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), particularly in intermediate-risk patients, suggest results from the COSMIC-313 trial.

At present, dual checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab is a standard of care for first-line treatment of aRCC that is deemed to be of intermediate or poor risk on the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score.

Cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is also a standard of care in aRCC, both as a single agent and in combination with nivolumab.

The new study investigated the use of the three drugs together as upfront first-line treatment and suggests that this triplet may become a new standard of care, especially in patients with intermediate-risk disease.

The research was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in Paris.

The trial involved 855 previously untreated patients with aRCC, all of whom received dual immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, who were randomly assigned to also receive either cabozantinib or matched placebo.

Patients given the triplet therapy had a significant 27% reduction in the risk for progression versus the doublet in the overall patient population.

The difference increased to 37% in patients with intermediate-risk disease on the IMDC risk score.

However, patients with poor-risk disease appeared not to derive any benefit from adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

In addition, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were more common with the triplet therapy.

The results suggest that adding cabozantinib results in a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” PFS benefit, study presenter Toni Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told a press conference.

He added that the safety profile of the triplet therapy was “generally manageable” and “consistent with the profiles of the treatment components.”

“The study will continue to the next analysis of overall survival, as this secondary endpoint was not met at first interim analysis,” Dr. Choueiri commented.

He told this news organization that, based on the current results, the triplet combination “may end up in intermediate-risk” patients, although it is not clear why there is a difference in response between risk groups, and the finding is “quite intriguing.”

Asked which therapy to choose now for first-line treatment of aRCC, given that there are now so many options, he said that there is now such “an embarrassment of riches of trials in the first-line” that it is perhaps easier to talk about which therapies “not to use.”

“We cannot use single TKIs anymore, so you have to use doublets and possibly now triplets,” he said.

“In my practice, patients that are progressing rapidly ... need a VEGF [vascular endothelial growth factor]–based combination. In patients that can wait and ... do not have a heavy disease burden, I still believe in nivolumab and ipilimumab, which has the longest follow-up, and the responses are durable.”

Approached for comment, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that this is a “really important study” because it has a “modern” study comparator in the control arm.

He said in an interview, however, that the question now is “obviously” how much treatment should be escalated to triple therapy “upfront versus the sequencing of active drugs.” The answer, he said, is currently unclear, and overall survival data are awaited.

Alongside the potential “challenge” of the toxicity to patients of the triplet therapy, Dr. Berthold also highlighted that it is “currently a challenge for health systems to imagine giving such expensive combinations.”

So though it is “really interesting data” and potentially represents a “step forward” in the field, the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab is “not for everybody.”

Dr. Choueiri said that he does “agree” that adding a third drug to an already expensive doublet therapy can mean that the costs end up being “exorbitant.”

However, he noted that in aRCC, “the paradigm is sequential, so if we’re able to delay the second line, and give drugs later, especially if there is some quality of life [benefit], I’m not sure it is more expensive” to give the three-drug combination.

Commenting for ESMO, Viktor Grünwald, MD, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Germany, noted that this is the “first study” to report “successful treatment intensification” in metastatic RCC through the use of triple therapy.

“However, treatment intensification is rarely seen without additional risks. Patients experienced the benefit of superior disease control but also additional toxicities, treatment pauses and discontinuations,” he pointed out.

“The triplet may compete in the clinical landscape with recommended life-prolonging immune doublets but mature overall survival data is needed for it to become a novel standard of care,” Dr. Grünwald commented.
 

Details of the new results

The phase 3 COSMIC-313 trial enrolled intermediate- or poor-risk patients with aRCC and good performance status who had received no prior systemic therapy and had a clear cell component on histology, which, Dr. Choueiri noted, represents around 80% of patients.

They were randomly assigned to cabozantinib or a matched placebo against a background of four cycles of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab for up to 2 years. No crossover was allowed between the two arms. Tumor assessment was performed every 8 weeks.

Overall, 855 patients were randomly assigned, 75% of whom had an intermediate risk on the IDMC risk score, and 25% had a poor risk. The median age of the patients was around 60 years, and between 73% and 76% were men. Prior nephrectomy had been performed in 65%.

The study met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement in PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. The median PFS was not reached for the triplet versus 11.3 months for patients given the doublet, at a hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = 0.013).

At 12 months, 57% of patients in the triplet-therapy arm remained disease-free versus 49% of those on dual immunotherapy.

Moreover, there was a higher objective response rate with the triplet therapy, at 43% versus 36% for the doublet, and the median duration of response was not reached in either group.

Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that most subgroups responded similarly to the overall patient population.

However, breaking the results down by IMDC risk group, Dr. Choueiri showed that PFS benefit was even greater in intermediate-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet therapy of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 047-0.85), and a similar response rate as in the overall analysis.

But the benefit of adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab appeared to be lost in poor-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.65-1.69). And in this subgroup, the objective response rates were similar: 37% with the triplet and 38% with the doublet.

Also, the triplet had a higher rate of adverse events. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 73% of patients on the triplet versus 41% with the doublet; 1% of patients in each group had a grade 5 event.

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of all treatment components occurred in 12% of patients receiving triplet therapy and in 5% of those assigned to placebo and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Dr. Choueiri highlighted that some adverse events, including elevated liver transaminases, diarrhea, and skin toxicity, were markedly more frequent with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with the doublet therapy. Discussing the study, Sumanta K. Pal, MD, co-director of the Kidney Cancer Program at City of Hope, Irvine, Calif., said that ESMO Congress 2022 has been a “high watermark” for trials in the RCC field and congratulated the researchers of COSMIC-313 for the number of “firsts” that it achieved.

However, he continued, the “elephant in the room” is the current lack of overall survival, and he pointed out that those hotly anticipated results could have a major impact on the future use of the triplet combination.

Dr. Pal questioned whether, in the meantime, it is even possible to make a decision about the combination and urged investigators of all trials to make overall survival data available sooner.

He also highlighted the high rates of elevated liver transaminases, and the apparent overlapping toxicities between the TKI and the immune checkpoint inhibitors, asking: “Does toxicity stand in the way of treatment?”

In conclusion, Dr. Pal acknowledged that the study did meet its PFS primary endpoint but asked whether a risk-adapted approach could be used to optimize delivery of triplet therapy.

He also called for investment into biomarker studies for regimens that are “actually used in the clinic” and wondered whether there could be a shift toward using drugs with novel modes of action that do not yield overlapping toxicities.

The study was funded by Exelixis.

Dr. Choueiri reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb; Pfizer; Lilly; Merck; Exelixis; AstraZeneca; EMD Serono; Calithera; Ipsen; Infinity; Surface Oncology; Analysis Group; ww2.peerview.com; gotoper.com; researchtopractice.com; ResearchToPractice; National Association of Managed Care; Orien Network; Aptitude Health; Advent health; UAE Society of Onc; MJH life sciences; MDACC; Cancernet; Kidney Cancer Association; Springer; WebMed; ASiM, Caribou Publishing; Aravive; Roche, and others.

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

PARIS – Adding cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Exelixis) to standard-of-care immunotherapy with nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) markedly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), particularly in intermediate-risk patients, suggest results from the COSMIC-313 trial.

At present, dual checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab is a standard of care for first-line treatment of aRCC that is deemed to be of intermediate or poor risk on the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score.

Cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is also a standard of care in aRCC, both as a single agent and in combination with nivolumab.

The new study investigated the use of the three drugs together as upfront first-line treatment and suggests that this triplet may become a new standard of care, especially in patients with intermediate-risk disease.

The research was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in Paris.

The trial involved 855 previously untreated patients with aRCC, all of whom received dual immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, who were randomly assigned to also receive either cabozantinib or matched placebo.

Patients given the triplet therapy had a significant 27% reduction in the risk for progression versus the doublet in the overall patient population.

The difference increased to 37% in patients with intermediate-risk disease on the IMDC risk score.

However, patients with poor-risk disease appeared not to derive any benefit from adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

In addition, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were more common with the triplet therapy.

The results suggest that adding cabozantinib results in a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” PFS benefit, study presenter Toni Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told a press conference.

He added that the safety profile of the triplet therapy was “generally manageable” and “consistent with the profiles of the treatment components.”

“The study will continue to the next analysis of overall survival, as this secondary endpoint was not met at first interim analysis,” Dr. Choueiri commented.

He told this news organization that, based on the current results, the triplet combination “may end up in intermediate-risk” patients, although it is not clear why there is a difference in response between risk groups, and the finding is “quite intriguing.”

Asked which therapy to choose now for first-line treatment of aRCC, given that there are now so many options, he said that there is now such “an embarrassment of riches of trials in the first-line” that it is perhaps easier to talk about which therapies “not to use.”

“We cannot use single TKIs anymore, so you have to use doublets and possibly now triplets,” he said.

“In my practice, patients that are progressing rapidly ... need a VEGF [vascular endothelial growth factor]–based combination. In patients that can wait and ... do not have a heavy disease burden, I still believe in nivolumab and ipilimumab, which has the longest follow-up, and the responses are durable.”

Approached for comment, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that this is a “really important study” because it has a “modern” study comparator in the control arm.

He said in an interview, however, that the question now is “obviously” how much treatment should be escalated to triple therapy “upfront versus the sequencing of active drugs.” The answer, he said, is currently unclear, and overall survival data are awaited.

Alongside the potential “challenge” of the toxicity to patients of the triplet therapy, Dr. Berthold also highlighted that it is “currently a challenge for health systems to imagine giving such expensive combinations.”

So though it is “really interesting data” and potentially represents a “step forward” in the field, the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab is “not for everybody.”

Dr. Choueiri said that he does “agree” that adding a third drug to an already expensive doublet therapy can mean that the costs end up being “exorbitant.”

However, he noted that in aRCC, “the paradigm is sequential, so if we’re able to delay the second line, and give drugs later, especially if there is some quality of life [benefit], I’m not sure it is more expensive” to give the three-drug combination.

Commenting for ESMO, Viktor Grünwald, MD, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Germany, noted that this is the “first study” to report “successful treatment intensification” in metastatic RCC through the use of triple therapy.

“However, treatment intensification is rarely seen without additional risks. Patients experienced the benefit of superior disease control but also additional toxicities, treatment pauses and discontinuations,” he pointed out.

“The triplet may compete in the clinical landscape with recommended life-prolonging immune doublets but mature overall survival data is needed for it to become a novel standard of care,” Dr. Grünwald commented.
 

Details of the new results

The phase 3 COSMIC-313 trial enrolled intermediate- or poor-risk patients with aRCC and good performance status who had received no prior systemic therapy and had a clear cell component on histology, which, Dr. Choueiri noted, represents around 80% of patients.

They were randomly assigned to cabozantinib or a matched placebo against a background of four cycles of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab for up to 2 years. No crossover was allowed between the two arms. Tumor assessment was performed every 8 weeks.

Overall, 855 patients were randomly assigned, 75% of whom had an intermediate risk on the IDMC risk score, and 25% had a poor risk. The median age of the patients was around 60 years, and between 73% and 76% were men. Prior nephrectomy had been performed in 65%.

The study met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement in PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. The median PFS was not reached for the triplet versus 11.3 months for patients given the doublet, at a hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = 0.013).

At 12 months, 57% of patients in the triplet-therapy arm remained disease-free versus 49% of those on dual immunotherapy.

Moreover, there was a higher objective response rate with the triplet therapy, at 43% versus 36% for the doublet, and the median duration of response was not reached in either group.

Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that most subgroups responded similarly to the overall patient population.

However, breaking the results down by IMDC risk group, Dr. Choueiri showed that PFS benefit was even greater in intermediate-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet therapy of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 047-0.85), and a similar response rate as in the overall analysis.

But the benefit of adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab appeared to be lost in poor-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.65-1.69). And in this subgroup, the objective response rates were similar: 37% with the triplet and 38% with the doublet.

Also, the triplet had a higher rate of adverse events. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 73% of patients on the triplet versus 41% with the doublet; 1% of patients in each group had a grade 5 event.

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of all treatment components occurred in 12% of patients receiving triplet therapy and in 5% of those assigned to placebo and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Dr. Choueiri highlighted that some adverse events, including elevated liver transaminases, diarrhea, and skin toxicity, were markedly more frequent with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with the doublet therapy. Discussing the study, Sumanta K. Pal, MD, co-director of the Kidney Cancer Program at City of Hope, Irvine, Calif., said that ESMO Congress 2022 has been a “high watermark” for trials in the RCC field and congratulated the researchers of COSMIC-313 for the number of “firsts” that it achieved.

However, he continued, the “elephant in the room” is the current lack of overall survival, and he pointed out that those hotly anticipated results could have a major impact on the future use of the triplet combination.

Dr. Pal questioned whether, in the meantime, it is even possible to make a decision about the combination and urged investigators of all trials to make overall survival data available sooner.

He also highlighted the high rates of elevated liver transaminases, and the apparent overlapping toxicities between the TKI and the immune checkpoint inhibitors, asking: “Does toxicity stand in the way of treatment?”

In conclusion, Dr. Pal acknowledged that the study did meet its PFS primary endpoint but asked whether a risk-adapted approach could be used to optimize delivery of triplet therapy.

He also called for investment into biomarker studies for regimens that are “actually used in the clinic” and wondered whether there could be a shift toward using drugs with novel modes of action that do not yield overlapping toxicities.

The study was funded by Exelixis.

Dr. Choueiri reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb; Pfizer; Lilly; Merck; Exelixis; AstraZeneca; EMD Serono; Calithera; Ipsen; Infinity; Surface Oncology; Analysis Group; ww2.peerview.com; gotoper.com; researchtopractice.com; ResearchToPractice; National Association of Managed Care; Orien Network; Aptitude Health; Advent health; UAE Society of Onc; MJH life sciences; MDACC; Cancernet; Kidney Cancer Association; Springer; WebMed; ASiM, Caribou Publishing; Aravive; Roche, and others.

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

PARIS – Adding cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Exelixis) to standard-of-care immunotherapy with nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) markedly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), particularly in intermediate-risk patients, suggest results from the COSMIC-313 trial.

At present, dual checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab is a standard of care for first-line treatment of aRCC that is deemed to be of intermediate or poor risk on the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score.

Cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is also a standard of care in aRCC, both as a single agent and in combination with nivolumab.

The new study investigated the use of the three drugs together as upfront first-line treatment and suggests that this triplet may become a new standard of care, especially in patients with intermediate-risk disease.

The research was presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress in Paris.

The trial involved 855 previously untreated patients with aRCC, all of whom received dual immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, who were randomly assigned to also receive either cabozantinib or matched placebo.

Patients given the triplet therapy had a significant 27% reduction in the risk for progression versus the doublet in the overall patient population.

The difference increased to 37% in patients with intermediate-risk disease on the IMDC risk score.

However, patients with poor-risk disease appeared not to derive any benefit from adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

In addition, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were more common with the triplet therapy.

The results suggest that adding cabozantinib results in a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” PFS benefit, study presenter Toni Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told a press conference.

He added that the safety profile of the triplet therapy was “generally manageable” and “consistent with the profiles of the treatment components.”

“The study will continue to the next analysis of overall survival, as this secondary endpoint was not met at first interim analysis,” Dr. Choueiri commented.

He told this news organization that, based on the current results, the triplet combination “may end up in intermediate-risk” patients, although it is not clear why there is a difference in response between risk groups, and the finding is “quite intriguing.”

Asked which therapy to choose now for first-line treatment of aRCC, given that there are now so many options, he said that there is now such “an embarrassment of riches of trials in the first-line” that it is perhaps easier to talk about which therapies “not to use.”

“We cannot use single TKIs anymore, so you have to use doublets and possibly now triplets,” he said.

“In my practice, patients that are progressing rapidly ... need a VEGF [vascular endothelial growth factor]–based combination. In patients that can wait and ... do not have a heavy disease burden, I still believe in nivolumab and ipilimumab, which has the longest follow-up, and the responses are durable.”

Approached for comment, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, said that this is a “really important study” because it has a “modern” study comparator in the control arm.

He said in an interview, however, that the question now is “obviously” how much treatment should be escalated to triple therapy “upfront versus the sequencing of active drugs.” The answer, he said, is currently unclear, and overall survival data are awaited.

Alongside the potential “challenge” of the toxicity to patients of the triplet therapy, Dr. Berthold also highlighted that it is “currently a challenge for health systems to imagine giving such expensive combinations.”

So though it is “really interesting data” and potentially represents a “step forward” in the field, the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab is “not for everybody.”

Dr. Choueiri said that he does “agree” that adding a third drug to an already expensive doublet therapy can mean that the costs end up being “exorbitant.”

However, he noted that in aRCC, “the paradigm is sequential, so if we’re able to delay the second line, and give drugs later, especially if there is some quality of life [benefit], I’m not sure it is more expensive” to give the three-drug combination.

Commenting for ESMO, Viktor Grünwald, MD, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Germany, noted that this is the “first study” to report “successful treatment intensification” in metastatic RCC through the use of triple therapy.

“However, treatment intensification is rarely seen without additional risks. Patients experienced the benefit of superior disease control but also additional toxicities, treatment pauses and discontinuations,” he pointed out.

“The triplet may compete in the clinical landscape with recommended life-prolonging immune doublets but mature overall survival data is needed for it to become a novel standard of care,” Dr. Grünwald commented.
 

Details of the new results

The phase 3 COSMIC-313 trial enrolled intermediate- or poor-risk patients with aRCC and good performance status who had received no prior systemic therapy and had a clear cell component on histology, which, Dr. Choueiri noted, represents around 80% of patients.

They were randomly assigned to cabozantinib or a matched placebo against a background of four cycles of nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab for up to 2 years. No crossover was allowed between the two arms. Tumor assessment was performed every 8 weeks.

Overall, 855 patients were randomly assigned, 75% of whom had an intermediate risk on the IDMC risk score, and 25% had a poor risk. The median age of the patients was around 60 years, and between 73% and 76% were men. Prior nephrectomy had been performed in 65%.

The study met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement in PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. The median PFS was not reached for the triplet versus 11.3 months for patients given the doublet, at a hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = 0.013).

At 12 months, 57% of patients in the triplet-therapy arm remained disease-free versus 49% of those on dual immunotherapy.

Moreover, there was a higher objective response rate with the triplet therapy, at 43% versus 36% for the doublet, and the median duration of response was not reached in either group.

Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that most subgroups responded similarly to the overall patient population.

However, breaking the results down by IMDC risk group, Dr. Choueiri showed that PFS benefit was even greater in intermediate-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet therapy of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 047-0.85), and a similar response rate as in the overall analysis.

But the benefit of adding cabozantinib to nivolumab plus ipilimumab appeared to be lost in poor-risk patients, at an HR for the triplet versus the doublet of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.65-1.69). And in this subgroup, the objective response rates were similar: 37% with the triplet and 38% with the doublet.

Also, the triplet had a higher rate of adverse events. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 73% of patients on the triplet versus 41% with the doublet; 1% of patients in each group had a grade 5 event.

Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of all treatment components occurred in 12% of patients receiving triplet therapy and in 5% of those assigned to placebo and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Dr. Choueiri highlighted that some adverse events, including elevated liver transaminases, diarrhea, and skin toxicity, were markedly more frequent with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with the doublet therapy. Discussing the study, Sumanta K. Pal, MD, co-director of the Kidney Cancer Program at City of Hope, Irvine, Calif., said that ESMO Congress 2022 has been a “high watermark” for trials in the RCC field and congratulated the researchers of COSMIC-313 for the number of “firsts” that it achieved.

However, he continued, the “elephant in the room” is the current lack of overall survival, and he pointed out that those hotly anticipated results could have a major impact on the future use of the triplet combination.

Dr. Pal questioned whether, in the meantime, it is even possible to make a decision about the combination and urged investigators of all trials to make overall survival data available sooner.

He also highlighted the high rates of elevated liver transaminases, and the apparent overlapping toxicities between the TKI and the immune checkpoint inhibitors, asking: “Does toxicity stand in the way of treatment?”

In conclusion, Dr. Pal acknowledged that the study did meet its PFS primary endpoint but asked whether a risk-adapted approach could be used to optimize delivery of triplet therapy.

He also called for investment into biomarker studies for regimens that are “actually used in the clinic” and wondered whether there could be a shift toward using drugs with novel modes of action that do not yield overlapping toxicities.

The study was funded by Exelixis.

Dr. Choueiri reports relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb; Pfizer; Lilly; Merck; Exelixis; AstraZeneca; EMD Serono; Calithera; Ipsen; Infinity; Surface Oncology; Analysis Group; ww2.peerview.com; gotoper.com; researchtopractice.com; ResearchToPractice; National Association of Managed Care; Orien Network; Aptitude Health; Advent health; UAE Society of Onc; MJH life sciences; MDACC; Cancernet; Kidney Cancer Association; Springer; WebMed; ASiM, Caribou Publishing; Aravive; Roche, and others.

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

A systematic review of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations suggests that they have a significant survival benefit over the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib and should be made generally available to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Until recently, first-line therapy for RCC has primarily been TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other receptors, including sunitinib and pazopanib. Explorations of novel therapeutic regimens focused on the use of multiple TKIs in combination with monoclonal antibodies that directly inhibit VEGF and inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as everolimus.

Some ICIs have already become the preferred first-line treatment for RCC. VEGF and VEGF receptors inhibitors are believed to have immunomodulatory effects, including boosting immune cell infiltration as a result of their effect on tumor vasculature. That idea has spurred recent clinical trials that have examined ICIs in combination with VEGF-directed therapies.

In a study published online in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, researchers examined six phase 3 clinical trials. Each compared ICI combinations versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic RCC. Four of the studies tested TKI/ICI combinations, and one each tested an ICI/anti-VEGF antibody and dual ICIs.

After median follow-ups of 20-30 months, there was no benefit to PD-L1 inhibitor combinations (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or avelumab plus axitinib) compared with sunitinib. Final survival analyses from one of the trials have not been reported yet.

PD-1 inhibitor combinations fared better. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a 32% reduced risk of death in intermediate/poor-risk patients, compared with sunitinib, but the combination led to more frequent discontinuation because of toxicity (21.8% versus 12.3%). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib produced a 34% reduction in risk of death (P = .003) and a 48% reduction in risk of progression (P < .0001). Rates of discontinuation because of toxicity were similar to sunitinib.

Pembrolizumab combined with TKIs led to a 32% reduced risk of death (P = .003) and a 29% reduced risk of progression (P < .001). Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib reduced risk of death by 28% (P value not reported) and the risk of progression by 61% (P < .001). Both combinations had a higher frequency of discontinuation because of toxicity (25.9% versus 10.1% and 37.2% versus 14.4%, respectively).

Given that there are no head-to-head comparisons between dual ICI or PD-1/TKI combinations, the researchers suggested that response outcomes may assist in selection between the two approaches. Overall, PD-1/TKI combinations had better overall response rates. The highest was seen in pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, where frequency of progressive disease ranged from 5.4% to 11.3%. Complete response rate ranged from 8% to 10%.

The authors suggest that upfront treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor and a TKI could be appropriate for patients with a high tumor burden or aggressive disease, in whom stopping tumor growth is urgent and progression could be particularly worrisome.

Safety concerns associated with dual-ICI combination therapy was similar to that seen in RCC and other cancers. Dose delays, rapid diagnostic workups, appropriate timing, and the use of glucocorticoids were among strategies used to manage treatment-related adverse events.

The authors note that five combinations are approved by either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Factors to consider for treatment selection include patient and disease characteristics, IMDC risk status, treatment history during earlier disease stage, and eligibility for immunotherapy. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be a good choice for patients with an intermediate or poor IMDC risk since it provides a strong and durable overall survival benefit. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, and nivolumab plus cabozantinib all have good overall response rates and can prolong life, though extended TKI use can lead to chronic toxicity. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not approved for those with a favorable IMDC risk in many regions.

Four of the authors reported receiving honoraria, research funding, or consulting for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and TerSera.

A systematic review of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations suggests that they have a significant survival benefit over the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib and should be made generally available to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Until recently, first-line therapy for RCC has primarily been TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other receptors, including sunitinib and pazopanib. Explorations of novel therapeutic regimens focused on the use of multiple TKIs in combination with monoclonal antibodies that directly inhibit VEGF and inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as everolimus.

Some ICIs have already become the preferred first-line treatment for RCC. VEGF and VEGF receptors inhibitors are believed to have immunomodulatory effects, including boosting immune cell infiltration as a result of their effect on tumor vasculature. That idea has spurred recent clinical trials that have examined ICIs in combination with VEGF-directed therapies.

In a study published online in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, researchers examined six phase 3 clinical trials. Each compared ICI combinations versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic RCC. Four of the studies tested TKI/ICI combinations, and one each tested an ICI/anti-VEGF antibody and dual ICIs.

After median follow-ups of 20-30 months, there was no benefit to PD-L1 inhibitor combinations (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or avelumab plus axitinib) compared with sunitinib. Final survival analyses from one of the trials have not been reported yet.

PD-1 inhibitor combinations fared better. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a 32% reduced risk of death in intermediate/poor-risk patients, compared with sunitinib, but the combination led to more frequent discontinuation because of toxicity (21.8% versus 12.3%). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib produced a 34% reduction in risk of death (P = .003) and a 48% reduction in risk of progression (P < .0001). Rates of discontinuation because of toxicity were similar to sunitinib.

Pembrolizumab combined with TKIs led to a 32% reduced risk of death (P = .003) and a 29% reduced risk of progression (P < .001). Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib reduced risk of death by 28% (P value not reported) and the risk of progression by 61% (P < .001). Both combinations had a higher frequency of discontinuation because of toxicity (25.9% versus 10.1% and 37.2% versus 14.4%, respectively).

Given that there are no head-to-head comparisons between dual ICI or PD-1/TKI combinations, the researchers suggested that response outcomes may assist in selection between the two approaches. Overall, PD-1/TKI combinations had better overall response rates. The highest was seen in pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, where frequency of progressive disease ranged from 5.4% to 11.3%. Complete response rate ranged from 8% to 10%.

The authors suggest that upfront treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor and a TKI could be appropriate for patients with a high tumor burden or aggressive disease, in whom stopping tumor growth is urgent and progression could be particularly worrisome.

Safety concerns associated with dual-ICI combination therapy was similar to that seen in RCC and other cancers. Dose delays, rapid diagnostic workups, appropriate timing, and the use of glucocorticoids were among strategies used to manage treatment-related adverse events.

The authors note that five combinations are approved by either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Factors to consider for treatment selection include patient and disease characteristics, IMDC risk status, treatment history during earlier disease stage, and eligibility for immunotherapy. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be a good choice for patients with an intermediate or poor IMDC risk since it provides a strong and durable overall survival benefit. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, and nivolumab plus cabozantinib all have good overall response rates and can prolong life, though extended TKI use can lead to chronic toxicity. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not approved for those with a favorable IMDC risk in many regions.

Four of the authors reported receiving honoraria, research funding, or consulting for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and TerSera.

A systematic review of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations suggests that they have a significant survival benefit over the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib and should be made generally available to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Until recently, first-line therapy for RCC has primarily been TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other receptors, including sunitinib and pazopanib. Explorations of novel therapeutic regimens focused on the use of multiple TKIs in combination with monoclonal antibodies that directly inhibit VEGF and inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as everolimus.

Some ICIs have already become the preferred first-line treatment for RCC. VEGF and VEGF receptors inhibitors are believed to have immunomodulatory effects, including boosting immune cell infiltration as a result of their effect on tumor vasculature. That idea has spurred recent clinical trials that have examined ICIs in combination with VEGF-directed therapies.

In a study published online in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, researchers examined six phase 3 clinical trials. Each compared ICI combinations versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic RCC. Four of the studies tested TKI/ICI combinations, and one each tested an ICI/anti-VEGF antibody and dual ICIs.

After median follow-ups of 20-30 months, there was no benefit to PD-L1 inhibitor combinations (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or avelumab plus axitinib) compared with sunitinib. Final survival analyses from one of the trials have not been reported yet.

PD-1 inhibitor combinations fared better. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a 32% reduced risk of death in intermediate/poor-risk patients, compared with sunitinib, but the combination led to more frequent discontinuation because of toxicity (21.8% versus 12.3%). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib produced a 34% reduction in risk of death (P = .003) and a 48% reduction in risk of progression (P < .0001). Rates of discontinuation because of toxicity were similar to sunitinib.

Pembrolizumab combined with TKIs led to a 32% reduced risk of death (P = .003) and a 29% reduced risk of progression (P < .001). Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib reduced risk of death by 28% (P value not reported) and the risk of progression by 61% (P < .001). Both combinations had a higher frequency of discontinuation because of toxicity (25.9% versus 10.1% and 37.2% versus 14.4%, respectively).

Given that there are no head-to-head comparisons between dual ICI or PD-1/TKI combinations, the researchers suggested that response outcomes may assist in selection between the two approaches. Overall, PD-1/TKI combinations had better overall response rates. The highest was seen in pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, where frequency of progressive disease ranged from 5.4% to 11.3%. Complete response rate ranged from 8% to 10%.

The authors suggest that upfront treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor and a TKI could be appropriate for patients with a high tumor burden or aggressive disease, in whom stopping tumor growth is urgent and progression could be particularly worrisome.

Safety concerns associated with dual-ICI combination therapy was similar to that seen in RCC and other cancers. Dose delays, rapid diagnostic workups, appropriate timing, and the use of glucocorticoids were among strategies used to manage treatment-related adverse events.

The authors note that five combinations are approved by either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Factors to consider for treatment selection include patient and disease characteristics, IMDC risk status, treatment history during earlier disease stage, and eligibility for immunotherapy. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be a good choice for patients with an intermediate or poor IMDC risk since it provides a strong and durable overall survival benefit. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, and nivolumab plus cabozantinib all have good overall response rates and can prolong life, though extended TKI use can lead to chronic toxicity. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not approved for those with a favorable IMDC risk in many regions.

Four of the authors reported receiving honoraria, research funding, or consulting for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and TerSera.

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”

In 2016, as vice president, Joe Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot program just 1 year after his son Beau died from glioblastoma multiforme. His objective, he said, was to “cure” cancer, but to get close to that goal, researchers from two leading National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers say an infusion of new funding for cancer research is needed to get cancer research just back up to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.

There has been a significant decrease in the launch of new clinical trials for cancer and biologic therapies since 2020. “That can affect every aspect of our research operation. It really affected our capacity to continue to move forward at a fast pace. It will require a behemoth effort to get back to pre-COVID times,” said Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, leader of the gastrointestinal cancer program at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016 authorizing $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot over 7 years. More recently, the program received $194 million from the $6.9 billion National Cancer Institute budget in FY 2022.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist oncologist and vice president of government affairs at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., sees the Moonshot budget as a potential shortcoming.

“The priorities are well founded and based on what we would think are the most important things to cover, but, if we’re going to achieve these extraordinarily ambitious goals of halving cancer mortality and serving communities more equitably, it’s going to need more funding positioned at making these things real,” he said.

Moonshot is being positioned as an opportunity to double down on efforts started in 2016, but treating cancer is complex and goes well beyond funding new research.

“We know that we have amazing research and progress around innovations that will drive us toward the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer. But we also know that we have tools that aren’t reaching all parts of the country, so we have a great opportunity to make sure that we’re doing all we can to prevent, detect and treat cancer,” Dr. Carnival said.
 

Can cancer be cured?

The Biden administration relaunched Moonshot in 2022 with newly defined goals: Cut the rate of cancer-related deaths in half within 25 years; improve the experience of people with cancer, cancer survivors, and their families; and “end cancer as we know it,” President Biden said in a press conference in February.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, but it may indeed be possible to cut the total number of cancer-related deaths in half over the next 25 years.

“As a hematologist who’s been involved in both research and clinical care, I think it’s important to realize this is actually doable. Between 1990 and 2020 cancer mortality rates decreased by 31%, and in the last American Cancer Society’s annual report, mortality rates dropped by the largest percentages for 2 consecutive years in a row. The question shifts now from ‘Is this possible? to ‘How do we ensure that it’s possible?’ The spirit of Cancer Moonshot 2.0 is identifying the multiple paths to move this effort forward,” Dr. Alvarnas said.

But without a significant infusion of cash for research, it’s doubtful cancer-related deaths will drop by 50% over the next 25 years.

“There are a lot of big and lofty goals in Cancer Moonshot, and the words ‘ending cancer,’ well those are big words,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “The reality is how do we measure in 25 years the impact of this today? I think it will require significantly more funding over the next few years to achieve the goals set by the Moonshot. Otherwise it will be a 7-year done deal that will accrue a lot of great numbers but won’t make a dent in those goals for the next 25 years. To stop it at some point and not invest more into it, we will probably lose most of the benefit.”

Closing the loop on data sharing

Moonshot has been instrumental in fostering research collaborations by encouraging data sharing among scientists.

“It also brought together a new way for the National Cancer Institute and Department of Energy to drive progress on some of the big data initiatives. The initial Cancer Moonshot infused a sense of urgency and hope into this effort,” said Danielle Carnival, PhD, coordinator of Cancer Moonshot.

Between 2017 and 2022, Cancer Moonshot created more than 70 consortiums or programs, and funded about 240 research projects. Its fundamental goals of improving data sharing and encouraging collaboration are very important, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“Because, historically, what happens with cancer is that researchers compete for resources...and they become very protective of their data. Sharing gets more difficult, collaborations become more onerous, and it becomes counterproductive,” he said.

Dr. Bekaii-Saab highlighted two networks created specifically for data sharing. They include the Human Tumor Atlas for cellular, morphological, and molecular tumor data, and PDXNet, a patient derived xenograft research network.
 

A shift in funding priorities?

Cancer funding has been stagnant for years. When adjusted for growth, it hasn’t had a significant infusion of funding since at least 2003—at least in relative terms, Dr. Bekaii-Saab said. “This affects a lot of the things we do, including NCI-funded clinical trials. It pushes us to work with the private sector, which is not necessarily a detriment, but it doesn’t advance the academic mission at the same level. So, overall, I wouldn’t call it tragic, but I do think we’re falling behind,” he said.

“I think when we do the process for the budget for FY24 and after we’ve had time to really explore the best ideas and build the foundation for some of these new aspects of the Cancer Moonshot, we hope to have something more concrete going toward these efforts,” Dr. Carnival said.

But in addition to funding, Dr. Alvarnas says, it is equally important to address gaps in care. Not all patients have access to existing cancer treatments.

“The great challenge to us in the 2020s is not only about developing new and more effective technologies, but also in doing a better job of getting existing life-saving treatments into the hands of underserved populations. One of the really positive challenges set forth by the Biden administration is the idea that financing care equity is as important, if not more so, than advancing technologies. If there’s been stagnation, it’s because from a government and resourcing point of view, that priority has been ineffectively supported financially.”
 

The pandemic stymies cancer research

The pandemic has had a significant impact on cancer research. As in other fields, it disrupted ongoing research, but it may have also contributed to the loss of employees who resigned in what’s been called the “Great Resignation.” “A lot of employees just decided to change jobs in the middle of the pandemic, which led to a cancer research staffing crisis,” Dr. Bekaii-Saab said.

“We all recognized that turning so much of the attention of the entire biomedical research engine and health system to the COVID-19 pandemic would have an impact across cancer research, screenings and care,” Dr. Carnival said. “There is work to do to get us back to whole, but from a research perspective, we’ve seen a reorientation of the trial networks we were using for COVID-19 research, back to their initial purpose. Some of those are cancer and oncology networks, so we’re excited about that and fully believe that we can catch up.”

But then there’s also the impact the pandemic has had on cancer patients who delayed their care at the primary level. This, Dr. Bekaii-Saab fears, will lead to more patients presenting with more advanced disease in years to come. “One of the biggest problems was that a lot of patients delayed their care at the primary level. My biggest concern is that in the years to come we will see a lot more patients presenting with more advanced cancer.”