Sarcoma & GIST

In 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” which outlined his world-shaking theory of evolution and its core principle of natural selection caused by environmental pressures that may determine whether an organism adapts and survives, or remains static, languishes, and eventually dies out.

The same forces that have influenced the size and shape of the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands, the length of giraffe necks in Africa, and the intestinal microbiomes of the nearly 8 billion human inhabitants of this planet also control whether malignant cells thrive and multiply, wither and die when assaulted by chemotherapy, or go into hiding, mutating and waiting for their next opportunity to erupt again and metastasize.

The ability of malignant cells to adapt to environmental pressures is “cancer’s most lethal and sophisticated property,” said Damon R. Reed, MD, program leader of the adolescent/young adult program at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Reed and colleagues are developing methods to meet cancer on its own terms, applying evolutionary principles to the treatment of childhood fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma in an innovative, and some would say audacious, clinical trial.

Adaptive versus conventional therapy

The trial, now recruiting, is designed to evaluate each of four different strategies for chemotherapy schedules in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma.

The trial contains four arms, three of which consist of either conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, moving a second-line therapy to the first line, or adding maintenance therapy, all of which have the goal of inducing as many complete remissions as possible.

The remaining adaptive therapy arm, however, is entirely novel in approach, with therapy using a combination of chemotherapy drugs that will be started and interrupted based on tumor responses, with resumption of therapy on an adaptive schedule unique to each patient. The goal of treatment for patients enrolled in this arm will be prolongation of the time to disease progression, rather than complete remission.

Although some people might consider the adaptive therapy approach to be sacrificing the hope for a cure in exchange for palliation, the hard truth is that patients with fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma (in contrast to those with fusion-negative disease) have a dismal prognosis following relapse after up-front intensified therapy.

Instead, because a cure is exceedingly unlikely in patients with metastatic disease, the conventional idea of delivering the maximum tolerated dose of chemotherapy until disease progression could be replaced by an approach based on understanding of the evolution of cancer cells under selective pressures, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

“Although adaptive therapy would represent a major paradigm shift in pediatric oncology, this approach would exploit the chemotherapy-sensitive population to prevent the emergence of resistant populations, optimizing tumor control with less toxicity,” they wrote in a commentary published online in the journal Cancer.¹

Poor survival with advanced disease

Childhood rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a form of soft tissue sarcoma of mesenchymal origin. Approximately 25% of cases are parameningeal, arising from sites adjacent to the meninges of the nasopharynx, middle ear, paranasal sinuses, orbit, and other regions of the head and neck. Approximately 31% of cases arise in the genitourinary tract and 13% in the extremities, and other tumors occur less commonly in the trunk, chest wall, perineal/anal region, and abdomen.

The overall 5-year survival rate is approximately 71%.¹

However, for patients with high-risk disease, a group that includes children 10 years of age or older with widespread disease with or without an activating PAX/FOX01 gene fusion, 5-year survival ranges from just 20% to 30% (Cancer Facts & Figures 2020).

“Among patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear difference in overall survival between those who have fusion-positive disease, where the 5-year overall survival is about 19%, and patients with fusion-negative disease,” said Douglas S. Hawkins, MD, chair of the children’s oncology group and professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and associate chief in the division of hematology/oncology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Patients with fusion-negative disease can be further classified into those with multiple metastatic sites, with a 5-year overall survival rate of approximately 45%, and those with a single metastatic site, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 70%, he said in an interview.

“So when we talk about metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, there actually is a diversity of outcomes, between really bad – those with fusion-positive disease – and not terrible – not great, but not terrible – for a selected group of patients with fusion-negative disease,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The poor prognosis for patients with metastatic fusion-positive disease prompted Dr. Reed and colleagues to rethink the entire approach to advanced cancers.

“If someone has a sarcoma, we know that we need to do surgery and radiation to the area, we know that localized disease does better than metastatic disease, and we generally hit it with some kind of chemotherapy that we call ‘standard of care,’ ” he said in an interview.

This approach is largely effective in some forms of cancer of bone and soft tissues, such as Ewing sarcoma, he notes, which has 5-year survival rates below 20% when treated with surgery and radiation only, but with the addition of chemotherapy has 5-year overall survival rates as high as 80%.

“At other times, with other sarcomas, the cure rate is abysmal, but we still call it standard of care,” Dr. Reed said.

For example, patients with metastatic fusion-positive RMS may have an initial response to chemotherapy, but most will eventually experience relapse and die of the disease.

“With some of the most common treatments, 70% of patients will have their cancers shrink by more than 50%, which is a major response, but the vast majority of them will have a recurrence later on,” Dr. Hawkins said.

He noted that the standard of care for patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, both with and without the PAX/FOX01 fusion, is chemotherapy, generally with the VAC regimen (vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide), although other agents such as doxorubicin, ifosfamide, etoposide, or irinotecan have also been tried, with little effect on event-free survival or overall survival rates.

A life too brief

Ricky Huff and his family know the course that the disease can take only too well. In 2015, his 5-month-old son, Theo, was diagnosed with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma and put under the care of Damon Reed at Moffitt.

“During the whole course of treatment – I’m sure like many other parents – apart from relying on Damon and his treatment expertise to try to determine the best treatment options, I was reading everything under the sun to try to get a working knowledge of what Theo was up against, what his treatment and clinical trial options were, and what was the state of the science,” Mr. Huff says.

Unfortunately, the characteristics of Theo’s disease, including his very young age at onset and diagnosis of stage 4 metastatic disease, conspired against him, and despite undergoing 14 months of chemotherapy, Theo died of the disease in October 2016, 5 months shy of what would have been his second birthday.

In their grief, Mr. Huff, a real estate lawyer with a practice in Clearwater, Fla., and his wife, Leah, were determined to help other families of children with cancer and settled on the National Pediatric Cancer Foundation. Mr. Huff joined the board of directors of the foundation, which is collaborating with Moffitt Cancer Center on the adaptive therapy trial.

An evolutionary primer (cancer edition)

To get a better idea of just how adaptive therapy works, it is helpful to view cancer cells through the lens of species development, adaptation, extinction, and evolution.

“Cancer cells compete against each other in a dynamic environment. Their tumor ecosystems exhibit spatial and temporal fluctuations in blood-borne nutrients, oxygen, growth factors, immune cells, and hormones,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote.

These influences can affect genetically identical cancer cells, which may begin to diverge from one another depending on their location in a tumor and the availability of nutrients, which in turn can result in two once-identical cells exhibiting different transcription rates for growth factors.

“Ultimately, this may affect the rate of progression through the cell cycle, leading to distinct rates of proliferation and mutational acquisition,” they wrote.

The diverging subpopulations will begin to develop different methods for adapting to the tumor microenvironment, with unique strategies for both accelerating growth and avoiding hazards such as chemotherapy drugs or radiation, the investigators explained.

“By the time a cancer becomes clinically apparent, cancer cells have transformed from a single clone into a diverse community of cell types evolving in response to a spatially and temporally heterogeneous tumor environment. Theoretically, a 10-gram cancer may contain the same order of magnitude of cancer cells as there are humans on earth, with tremendous diversity of phenotypes and environments,” they wrote.

Survival of the fittest

The competition of individuals within and between species described by Darwin also applies to cancer cells, in their interactions both with each other and with stromal cells and immune cells resulting in “the progressive replacement of less fit phenotypes by those that are more fit,” Dr. Reed and colleagues explained.

And just like the old joke about two hikers trying to escape from a charging grizzly bear (one says, “This is futile – we can’t outrun a grizzly,” and the other says, “I only have to outrun you!”), cancer cells only need to be more resistant to therapeutic attack than normal cells that are critical to function.

“This may explain why initial responses in certain solid tumors (notably rhabdomyosarcoma) do not predict eventual survival. The sensitivities of the dominant cancer cell populations dictate the initial response, but it is the ecology and evolution of the rare and more resistant populations that determine cure or relapse,” they wrote.

The endangered species list

As with many types of cancer, the current approach to treating pediatric sarcomas with curative intent is with a “first strike” approach, treating patients with surgery, radiation, and cytotoxic chemotherapy at the maximum tolerated dose for as long as needed or until unacceptable toxicities occur, with the intention of wiping out all cancer cells without permanently injuring normal cells.

The evolutionary analogy to this approach is a mass extinction event such as the meteor strike that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 66 million years ago. Fossil evidence suggests that the cataclysmic event resulted in the atmosphere being blanketed with dust particles that blocked sunlight and caused massive die-off of plants that dinosaurs needed to survive and were ill-adapted to do without.

In contrast, populations of smaller, more adaptable species of microbes, insects, and animals, including our mammalian ancestors, were able to survive and eventually flourish.

Many patients with localized cancers may be cured with up-front therapy, but others will have residual disease from populations of cells that are intrinsically resistant to therapy or have developed new evasion strategies.

Strike two and the MVP

Dr. Reed and colleagues liken the approach of second-line therapy for treatment of relapsed or refractory disease to the concept of “background extinctions,” using the fate of the passenger pigeon as an example of how a second-strike therapeutic strategy works.

Although the popular conception is that the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction by humans, the species in fact died out because of many different factors, including loss of habitat, isolation of populations leading to a loss of genetic diversity, and disruption of breeding habits.

“Once first strikes of deforestation and hunting reduced the birds to small, fragmented populations, a series of what would otherwise have been minor second strikes pushed the passenger pigeon below its extinction threshold, or minimum viable population,” they said.

The analogy, as it applies to cancer therapy, is the use of second-line or follow-on therapy with one or more agents that the residual cells are at least in theory not resistant to. In the case of fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma, the drug most commonly added in the second-strike approach is vinorelbine.²

“Second strikes should be timed to occur around the time when the first strike has achieved its greatest effect, presumably at the point when the disease becomes clinically undetectable or at a measurable nadir,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote. “Ideally, second-strike therapies should have modes of action that require different resistance strategies by the cancer cells than those needed for resistance to the first strike.”

Adaptive therapy

As Dr. Reed and colleagues note, despite optimal therapy, 94% of patients with metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma will experience a relapse within 3 years of diagnosis.1 Clearly the scorched earth or “throw everything you have it” approach no longer works, and that’s where adaptive therapy comes in.

Here again, the authors rely on nature, or rather human interaction with nature, to devise a strategy for keeping the disease at bay when extinction of all cancerous cells cannot be achieved.

They cite the example of agricultural integrated pest management, which seeks to keep harmful insects in check by treating them to suppress but not completely destroy a population, then stopping the use of pesticides, and resuming only when the insect population spikes and again becomes a threat to crops.

“The goal is to limit crop damage while retaining the sensitivity of the insects to the pesticides. Resistance most often comes at a cost. In the absence of the pesticide, sensitive individuals will outcompete resistant individuals,” they wrote.

Adaptive therapy uses the same approach to reduce selection pressures that foster resistance, with patients treated only until a specific, predetermined response is achieved in the dominant population of chemosensitive cells. The treatment is then interrupted and reintroduced only when the tumor rebounds to a certain predetermined size.

In this scenario, cells that retain sensitivity to chemotherapy will be able to reproduce and proliferate more rapidly than drug-resistant cells, and the therapy can then be reintroduced. This strategy is less likely to cause the development and proliferation of resistant cells than conventional intensified chemotherapy, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

Putting it to the test

The clinical trial that Dr. Reed and colleagues have initiated, officially titled “Evolutionary Inspired Therapy for Newly Diagnosed, Metastatic, Fusion Positive Rhabdomyosarcoma,” (NCT04388839) contains four arms: three experimental and one active comparator arm.

“We won’t randomize; we don’t feel that it would be fair to randomize patients, because these arms are so different from each other,” Dr. Reed said.

Arm A is the experimental first-strike arm, a 42-week course containing cyclophosphamide delivered intravenously over 60 minutes at a dose ranging from 220 mg to 1200 mg, vinorelbine delivered in an IV push over 6-10 minutes with a dose ranging from 4 mg to 25 mg, and actinomycin D administered via IV over 3-5 minutes at a dose ranging from 0.025 mg to 0.04 mg.

“The idea is that we take the standard of care, and we add a drug – vinorelbine – to make it stronger,” Dr. Reed said. “The idea is that the resistant cell, the cell that escapes, if we start hitting it on day 1 with vinorelbine, we might be able to drive it to extinction.”

Arm B, the second experimental arm, is the second-strike and maintenance arm, in which patients will receive conventional doses of vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) until complete response (CR) for 12-42 weeks, and will then be switched to up to 2 years of maintenance with vinorelbine and oral cyclophosphamide.

“Vinorelbine will be added when the cancer is declining or first goes into remission. We try not to wait 42 weeks, which is too long we think, by which time the cancer may be fully adapted and resistant,” he explained.

Arm C is the adaptive therapy arm, in which patients will receive VAC that starts and stops based on response, with the goal of prolonging time to disease progression rather than achieving CR.

Arm D is the active comparator arm, consisting of conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, such as VAC for 42 weeks, or other standard-of-care regimens that may include irinotecan, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and/or etoposide.

A change in thinking

Dr. Reed acknowledges that Arm C, the adaptive therapy arm, “definitely represents a change in thinking for pediatric oncology.”

“The idea is that if you could do this perfectly well, you would be able to take a patient who is diagnosed today and essentially ‘pause’ their disease for a while. Then 5 years from now, if there is a better medicine, you would have gotten that patient to that medicine.”

The optimal approach to treating metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma may be similar to that used for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with induction, consolidation, and maintenance and the option of delayed intensification, he said.

“But we’re so far away from knowing which series to do that we just need to show that any series – any changing it up – is helpful.”

Dr. Reed said that when he started presenting the concept of adaptive therapy in clinical meetings in 2017, “I was told to come up with a better idea. There were several people who instantly got it, but most people would instantly get angry.”

The common refrain was that adaptive therapy was “giving up.”

But minds began to change in 2018, following presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology of a European study showing that adding 6 months of low-dose chemotherapy maintenance to standard therapy improved the 5-year overall survival rate of pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma from 73.7% to 86.6%.2

Before presenting the idea of adaptive therapy to his colleagues, he ran it by the parents of children with advanced sarcomas, and many were on board with it, he said.

Ricky Huff said that had the option of adaptive therapy been available for Theo, he and his wife would have been willing to try it.

“Of course, everyone has the ability in hindsight to apply critical thinking to decisions that you made or could have made,” he said. “I think is true for many parents, who if they’re presented with information about options will say ‘well if there’s a 1 percent chance, I want that chance for my child, especially for a 5-month-old.”

The decision to choose adaptive therapy is a difficult decision to make, whether for oneself or for one’s son, because it isn’t curative.

“My wife and I have since had a conversation about this, and I do think we would have considered it, although through a lot of difficult conversations,” he said.

“After we got the pathology, knowing that it was metastatic, fusion-positive, and given his age, just doing a brief literature review on my own, I knew what we were up against using 20-year-old treatments, and that the chance of a cure was very, very small.”

If parents of children with metastatic, poor-prognosis rhabdomyosarcoma could be made to understand that adaptive therapy would entail shorter and fewer hospital stays, and cumulatively less toxic chemotherapy, and could prolong the lives of their children, the option might be more acceptable, he said.

And as Dr. Reed mentioned, prolonging time to progression offers hope of additional therapies to come.

“The whole time that my son was being treated, I hoped that there was going to be something else that came out, that a new trial would be launched because they found a way to drug a mutation, or treat it with immunotherapy – something that was going to give us a better option.”

Asked whether he would be willing to share his experiences in this article, Mr. Huff said that “I am willing to, in whatever small way I can, make an impact, and hopefully save another family from what we experienced.”

References

1. Reed DR et al. Cancer. 2020 Jun 1;126(11):2577-87 2. Bisogno G et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:18_suppl,LBA-2

In 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” which outlined his world-shaking theory of evolution and its core principle of natural selection caused by environmental pressures that may determine whether an organism adapts and survives, or remains static, languishes, and eventually dies out.

The same forces that have influenced the size and shape of the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands, the length of giraffe necks in Africa, and the intestinal microbiomes of the nearly 8 billion human inhabitants of this planet also control whether malignant cells thrive and multiply, wither and die when assaulted by chemotherapy, or go into hiding, mutating and waiting for their next opportunity to erupt again and metastasize.

The ability of malignant cells to adapt to environmental pressures is “cancer’s most lethal and sophisticated property,” said Damon R. Reed, MD, program leader of the adolescent/young adult program at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Reed and colleagues are developing methods to meet cancer on its own terms, applying evolutionary principles to the treatment of childhood fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma in an innovative, and some would say audacious, clinical trial.

Adaptive versus conventional therapy

The trial, now recruiting, is designed to evaluate each of four different strategies for chemotherapy schedules in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma.

The trial contains four arms, three of which consist of either conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, moving a second-line therapy to the first line, or adding maintenance therapy, all of which have the goal of inducing as many complete remissions as possible.

The remaining adaptive therapy arm, however, is entirely novel in approach, with therapy using a combination of chemotherapy drugs that will be started and interrupted based on tumor responses, with resumption of therapy on an adaptive schedule unique to each patient. The goal of treatment for patients enrolled in this arm will be prolongation of the time to disease progression, rather than complete remission.

Although some people might consider the adaptive therapy approach to be sacrificing the hope for a cure in exchange for palliation, the hard truth is that patients with fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma (in contrast to those with fusion-negative disease) have a dismal prognosis following relapse after up-front intensified therapy.

Instead, because a cure is exceedingly unlikely in patients with metastatic disease, the conventional idea of delivering the maximum tolerated dose of chemotherapy until disease progression could be replaced by an approach based on understanding of the evolution of cancer cells under selective pressures, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

“Although adaptive therapy would represent a major paradigm shift in pediatric oncology, this approach would exploit the chemotherapy-sensitive population to prevent the emergence of resistant populations, optimizing tumor control with less toxicity,” they wrote in a commentary published online in the journal Cancer.¹

Poor survival with advanced disease

Childhood rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a form of soft tissue sarcoma of mesenchymal origin. Approximately 25% of cases are parameningeal, arising from sites adjacent to the meninges of the nasopharynx, middle ear, paranasal sinuses, orbit, and other regions of the head and neck. Approximately 31% of cases arise in the genitourinary tract and 13% in the extremities, and other tumors occur less commonly in the trunk, chest wall, perineal/anal region, and abdomen.

The overall 5-year survival rate is approximately 71%.¹

However, for patients with high-risk disease, a group that includes children 10 years of age or older with widespread disease with or without an activating PAX/FOX01 gene fusion, 5-year survival ranges from just 20% to 30% (Cancer Facts & Figures 2020).

“Among patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear difference in overall survival between those who have fusion-positive disease, where the 5-year overall survival is about 19%, and patients with fusion-negative disease,” said Douglas S. Hawkins, MD, chair of the children’s oncology group and professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and associate chief in the division of hematology/oncology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Patients with fusion-negative disease can be further classified into those with multiple metastatic sites, with a 5-year overall survival rate of approximately 45%, and those with a single metastatic site, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 70%, he said in an interview.

“So when we talk about metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, there actually is a diversity of outcomes, between really bad – those with fusion-positive disease – and not terrible – not great, but not terrible – for a selected group of patients with fusion-negative disease,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The poor prognosis for patients with metastatic fusion-positive disease prompted Dr. Reed and colleagues to rethink the entire approach to advanced cancers.

“If someone has a sarcoma, we know that we need to do surgery and radiation to the area, we know that localized disease does better than metastatic disease, and we generally hit it with some kind of chemotherapy that we call ‘standard of care,’ ” he said in an interview.

This approach is largely effective in some forms of cancer of bone and soft tissues, such as Ewing sarcoma, he notes, which has 5-year survival rates below 20% when treated with surgery and radiation only, but with the addition of chemotherapy has 5-year overall survival rates as high as 80%.

“At other times, with other sarcomas, the cure rate is abysmal, but we still call it standard of care,” Dr. Reed said.

For example, patients with metastatic fusion-positive RMS may have an initial response to chemotherapy, but most will eventually experience relapse and die of the disease.

“With some of the most common treatments, 70% of patients will have their cancers shrink by more than 50%, which is a major response, but the vast majority of them will have a recurrence later on,” Dr. Hawkins said.

He noted that the standard of care for patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, both with and without the PAX/FOX01 fusion, is chemotherapy, generally with the VAC regimen (vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide), although other agents such as doxorubicin, ifosfamide, etoposide, or irinotecan have also been tried, with little effect on event-free survival or overall survival rates.

A life too brief

Ricky Huff and his family know the course that the disease can take only too well. In 2015, his 5-month-old son, Theo, was diagnosed with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma and put under the care of Damon Reed at Moffitt.

“During the whole course of treatment – I’m sure like many other parents – apart from relying on Damon and his treatment expertise to try to determine the best treatment options, I was reading everything under the sun to try to get a working knowledge of what Theo was up against, what his treatment and clinical trial options were, and what was the state of the science,” Mr. Huff says.

Unfortunately, the characteristics of Theo’s disease, including his very young age at onset and diagnosis of stage 4 metastatic disease, conspired against him, and despite undergoing 14 months of chemotherapy, Theo died of the disease in October 2016, 5 months shy of what would have been his second birthday.

In their grief, Mr. Huff, a real estate lawyer with a practice in Clearwater, Fla., and his wife, Leah, were determined to help other families of children with cancer and settled on the National Pediatric Cancer Foundation. Mr. Huff joined the board of directors of the foundation, which is collaborating with Moffitt Cancer Center on the adaptive therapy trial.

An evolutionary primer (cancer edition)

To get a better idea of just how adaptive therapy works, it is helpful to view cancer cells through the lens of species development, adaptation, extinction, and evolution.

“Cancer cells compete against each other in a dynamic environment. Their tumor ecosystems exhibit spatial and temporal fluctuations in blood-borne nutrients, oxygen, growth factors, immune cells, and hormones,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote.

These influences can affect genetically identical cancer cells, which may begin to diverge from one another depending on their location in a tumor and the availability of nutrients, which in turn can result in two once-identical cells exhibiting different transcription rates for growth factors.

“Ultimately, this may affect the rate of progression through the cell cycle, leading to distinct rates of proliferation and mutational acquisition,” they wrote.

The diverging subpopulations will begin to develop different methods for adapting to the tumor microenvironment, with unique strategies for both accelerating growth and avoiding hazards such as chemotherapy drugs or radiation, the investigators explained.

“By the time a cancer becomes clinically apparent, cancer cells have transformed from a single clone into a diverse community of cell types evolving in response to a spatially and temporally heterogeneous tumor environment. Theoretically, a 10-gram cancer may contain the same order of magnitude of cancer cells as there are humans on earth, with tremendous diversity of phenotypes and environments,” they wrote.

Survival of the fittest

The competition of individuals within and between species described by Darwin also applies to cancer cells, in their interactions both with each other and with stromal cells and immune cells resulting in “the progressive replacement of less fit phenotypes by those that are more fit,” Dr. Reed and colleagues explained.

And just like the old joke about two hikers trying to escape from a charging grizzly bear (one says, “This is futile – we can’t outrun a grizzly,” and the other says, “I only have to outrun you!”), cancer cells only need to be more resistant to therapeutic attack than normal cells that are critical to function.

“This may explain why initial responses in certain solid tumors (notably rhabdomyosarcoma) do not predict eventual survival. The sensitivities of the dominant cancer cell populations dictate the initial response, but it is the ecology and evolution of the rare and more resistant populations that determine cure or relapse,” they wrote.

The endangered species list

As with many types of cancer, the current approach to treating pediatric sarcomas with curative intent is with a “first strike” approach, treating patients with surgery, radiation, and cytotoxic chemotherapy at the maximum tolerated dose for as long as needed or until unacceptable toxicities occur, with the intention of wiping out all cancer cells without permanently injuring normal cells.

The evolutionary analogy to this approach is a mass extinction event such as the meteor strike that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 66 million years ago. Fossil evidence suggests that the cataclysmic event resulted in the atmosphere being blanketed with dust particles that blocked sunlight and caused massive die-off of plants that dinosaurs needed to survive and were ill-adapted to do without.

In contrast, populations of smaller, more adaptable species of microbes, insects, and animals, including our mammalian ancestors, were able to survive and eventually flourish.

Many patients with localized cancers may be cured with up-front therapy, but others will have residual disease from populations of cells that are intrinsically resistant to therapy or have developed new evasion strategies.

Strike two and the MVP

Dr. Reed and colleagues liken the approach of second-line therapy for treatment of relapsed or refractory disease to the concept of “background extinctions,” using the fate of the passenger pigeon as an example of how a second-strike therapeutic strategy works.

Although the popular conception is that the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction by humans, the species in fact died out because of many different factors, including loss of habitat, isolation of populations leading to a loss of genetic diversity, and disruption of breeding habits.

“Once first strikes of deforestation and hunting reduced the birds to small, fragmented populations, a series of what would otherwise have been minor second strikes pushed the passenger pigeon below its extinction threshold, or minimum viable population,” they said.

The analogy, as it applies to cancer therapy, is the use of second-line or follow-on therapy with one or more agents that the residual cells are at least in theory not resistant to. In the case of fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma, the drug most commonly added in the second-strike approach is vinorelbine.²

“Second strikes should be timed to occur around the time when the first strike has achieved its greatest effect, presumably at the point when the disease becomes clinically undetectable or at a measurable nadir,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote. “Ideally, second-strike therapies should have modes of action that require different resistance strategies by the cancer cells than those needed for resistance to the first strike.”

Adaptive therapy

As Dr. Reed and colleagues note, despite optimal therapy, 94% of patients with metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma will experience a relapse within 3 years of diagnosis.1 Clearly the scorched earth or “throw everything you have it” approach no longer works, and that’s where adaptive therapy comes in.

Here again, the authors rely on nature, or rather human interaction with nature, to devise a strategy for keeping the disease at bay when extinction of all cancerous cells cannot be achieved.

They cite the example of agricultural integrated pest management, which seeks to keep harmful insects in check by treating them to suppress but not completely destroy a population, then stopping the use of pesticides, and resuming only when the insect population spikes and again becomes a threat to crops.

“The goal is to limit crop damage while retaining the sensitivity of the insects to the pesticides. Resistance most often comes at a cost. In the absence of the pesticide, sensitive individuals will outcompete resistant individuals,” they wrote.

Adaptive therapy uses the same approach to reduce selection pressures that foster resistance, with patients treated only until a specific, predetermined response is achieved in the dominant population of chemosensitive cells. The treatment is then interrupted and reintroduced only when the tumor rebounds to a certain predetermined size.

In this scenario, cells that retain sensitivity to chemotherapy will be able to reproduce and proliferate more rapidly than drug-resistant cells, and the therapy can then be reintroduced. This strategy is less likely to cause the development and proliferation of resistant cells than conventional intensified chemotherapy, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

Putting it to the test

The clinical trial that Dr. Reed and colleagues have initiated, officially titled “Evolutionary Inspired Therapy for Newly Diagnosed, Metastatic, Fusion Positive Rhabdomyosarcoma,” (NCT04388839) contains four arms: three experimental and one active comparator arm.

“We won’t randomize; we don’t feel that it would be fair to randomize patients, because these arms are so different from each other,” Dr. Reed said.

Arm A is the experimental first-strike arm, a 42-week course containing cyclophosphamide delivered intravenously over 60 minutes at a dose ranging from 220 mg to 1200 mg, vinorelbine delivered in an IV push over 6-10 minutes with a dose ranging from 4 mg to 25 mg, and actinomycin D administered via IV over 3-5 minutes at a dose ranging from 0.025 mg to 0.04 mg.

“The idea is that we take the standard of care, and we add a drug – vinorelbine – to make it stronger,” Dr. Reed said. “The idea is that the resistant cell, the cell that escapes, if we start hitting it on day 1 with vinorelbine, we might be able to drive it to extinction.”

Arm B, the second experimental arm, is the second-strike and maintenance arm, in which patients will receive conventional doses of vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) until complete response (CR) for 12-42 weeks, and will then be switched to up to 2 years of maintenance with vinorelbine and oral cyclophosphamide.

“Vinorelbine will be added when the cancer is declining or first goes into remission. We try not to wait 42 weeks, which is too long we think, by which time the cancer may be fully adapted and resistant,” he explained.

Arm C is the adaptive therapy arm, in which patients will receive VAC that starts and stops based on response, with the goal of prolonging time to disease progression rather than achieving CR.

Arm D is the active comparator arm, consisting of conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, such as VAC for 42 weeks, or other standard-of-care regimens that may include irinotecan, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and/or etoposide.

A change in thinking

Dr. Reed acknowledges that Arm C, the adaptive therapy arm, “definitely represents a change in thinking for pediatric oncology.”

“The idea is that if you could do this perfectly well, you would be able to take a patient who is diagnosed today and essentially ‘pause’ their disease for a while. Then 5 years from now, if there is a better medicine, you would have gotten that patient to that medicine.”

The optimal approach to treating metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma may be similar to that used for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with induction, consolidation, and maintenance and the option of delayed intensification, he said.

“But we’re so far away from knowing which series to do that we just need to show that any series – any changing it up – is helpful.”

Dr. Reed said that when he started presenting the concept of adaptive therapy in clinical meetings in 2017, “I was told to come up with a better idea. There were several people who instantly got it, but most people would instantly get angry.”

The common refrain was that adaptive therapy was “giving up.”

But minds began to change in 2018, following presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology of a European study showing that adding 6 months of low-dose chemotherapy maintenance to standard therapy improved the 5-year overall survival rate of pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma from 73.7% to 86.6%.2

Before presenting the idea of adaptive therapy to his colleagues, he ran it by the parents of children with advanced sarcomas, and many were on board with it, he said.

Ricky Huff said that had the option of adaptive therapy been available for Theo, he and his wife would have been willing to try it.

“Of course, everyone has the ability in hindsight to apply critical thinking to decisions that you made or could have made,” he said. “I think is true for many parents, who if they’re presented with information about options will say ‘well if there’s a 1 percent chance, I want that chance for my child, especially for a 5-month-old.”

The decision to choose adaptive therapy is a difficult decision to make, whether for oneself or for one’s son, because it isn’t curative.

“My wife and I have since had a conversation about this, and I do think we would have considered it, although through a lot of difficult conversations,” he said.

“After we got the pathology, knowing that it was metastatic, fusion-positive, and given his age, just doing a brief literature review on my own, I knew what we were up against using 20-year-old treatments, and that the chance of a cure was very, very small.”

If parents of children with metastatic, poor-prognosis rhabdomyosarcoma could be made to understand that adaptive therapy would entail shorter and fewer hospital stays, and cumulatively less toxic chemotherapy, and could prolong the lives of their children, the option might be more acceptable, he said.

And as Dr. Reed mentioned, prolonging time to progression offers hope of additional therapies to come.

“The whole time that my son was being treated, I hoped that there was going to be something else that came out, that a new trial would be launched because they found a way to drug a mutation, or treat it with immunotherapy – something that was going to give us a better option.”

Asked whether he would be willing to share his experiences in this article, Mr. Huff said that “I am willing to, in whatever small way I can, make an impact, and hopefully save another family from what we experienced.”

References

1. Reed DR et al. Cancer. 2020 Jun 1;126(11):2577-87 2. Bisogno G et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:18_suppl,LBA-2

In 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” which outlined his world-shaking theory of evolution and its core principle of natural selection caused by environmental pressures that may determine whether an organism adapts and survives, or remains static, languishes, and eventually dies out.

The same forces that have influenced the size and shape of the beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands, the length of giraffe necks in Africa, and the intestinal microbiomes of the nearly 8 billion human inhabitants of this planet also control whether malignant cells thrive and multiply, wither and die when assaulted by chemotherapy, or go into hiding, mutating and waiting for their next opportunity to erupt again and metastasize.

The ability of malignant cells to adapt to environmental pressures is “cancer’s most lethal and sophisticated property,” said Damon R. Reed, MD, program leader of the adolescent/young adult program at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Reed and colleagues are developing methods to meet cancer on its own terms, applying evolutionary principles to the treatment of childhood fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma in an innovative, and some would say audacious, clinical trial.

Adaptive versus conventional therapy

The trial, now recruiting, is designed to evaluate each of four different strategies for chemotherapy schedules in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma.

The trial contains four arms, three of which consist of either conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, moving a second-line therapy to the first line, or adding maintenance therapy, all of which have the goal of inducing as many complete remissions as possible.

The remaining adaptive therapy arm, however, is entirely novel in approach, with therapy using a combination of chemotherapy drugs that will be started and interrupted based on tumor responses, with resumption of therapy on an adaptive schedule unique to each patient. The goal of treatment for patients enrolled in this arm will be prolongation of the time to disease progression, rather than complete remission.

Although some people might consider the adaptive therapy approach to be sacrificing the hope for a cure in exchange for palliation, the hard truth is that patients with fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma (in contrast to those with fusion-negative disease) have a dismal prognosis following relapse after up-front intensified therapy.

Instead, because a cure is exceedingly unlikely in patients with metastatic disease, the conventional idea of delivering the maximum tolerated dose of chemotherapy until disease progression could be replaced by an approach based on understanding of the evolution of cancer cells under selective pressures, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

“Although adaptive therapy would represent a major paradigm shift in pediatric oncology, this approach would exploit the chemotherapy-sensitive population to prevent the emergence of resistant populations, optimizing tumor control with less toxicity,” they wrote in a commentary published online in the journal Cancer.¹

Poor survival with advanced disease

Childhood rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is a form of soft tissue sarcoma of mesenchymal origin. Approximately 25% of cases are parameningeal, arising from sites adjacent to the meninges of the nasopharynx, middle ear, paranasal sinuses, orbit, and other regions of the head and neck. Approximately 31% of cases arise in the genitourinary tract and 13% in the extremities, and other tumors occur less commonly in the trunk, chest wall, perineal/anal region, and abdomen.

The overall 5-year survival rate is approximately 71%.¹

However, for patients with high-risk disease, a group that includes children 10 years of age or older with widespread disease with or without an activating PAX/FOX01 gene fusion, 5-year survival ranges from just 20% to 30% (Cancer Facts & Figures 2020).

“Among patients with metastatic disease, there is a clear difference in overall survival between those who have fusion-positive disease, where the 5-year overall survival is about 19%, and patients with fusion-negative disease,” said Douglas S. Hawkins, MD, chair of the children’s oncology group and professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and associate chief in the division of hematology/oncology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Patients with fusion-negative disease can be further classified into those with multiple metastatic sites, with a 5-year overall survival rate of approximately 45%, and those with a single metastatic site, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 70%, he said in an interview.

“So when we talk about metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, there actually is a diversity of outcomes, between really bad – those with fusion-positive disease – and not terrible – not great, but not terrible – for a selected group of patients with fusion-negative disease,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The poor prognosis for patients with metastatic fusion-positive disease prompted Dr. Reed and colleagues to rethink the entire approach to advanced cancers.

“If someone has a sarcoma, we know that we need to do surgery and radiation to the area, we know that localized disease does better than metastatic disease, and we generally hit it with some kind of chemotherapy that we call ‘standard of care,’ ” he said in an interview.

This approach is largely effective in some forms of cancer of bone and soft tissues, such as Ewing sarcoma, he notes, which has 5-year survival rates below 20% when treated with surgery and radiation only, but with the addition of chemotherapy has 5-year overall survival rates as high as 80%.

“At other times, with other sarcomas, the cure rate is abysmal, but we still call it standard of care,” Dr. Reed said.

For example, patients with metastatic fusion-positive RMS may have an initial response to chemotherapy, but most will eventually experience relapse and die of the disease.

“With some of the most common treatments, 70% of patients will have their cancers shrink by more than 50%, which is a major response, but the vast majority of them will have a recurrence later on,” Dr. Hawkins said.

He noted that the standard of care for patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, both with and without the PAX/FOX01 fusion, is chemotherapy, generally with the VAC regimen (vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide), although other agents such as doxorubicin, ifosfamide, etoposide, or irinotecan have also been tried, with little effect on event-free survival or overall survival rates.

A life too brief

Ricky Huff and his family know the course that the disease can take only too well. In 2015, his 5-month-old son, Theo, was diagnosed with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma and put under the care of Damon Reed at Moffitt.

“During the whole course of treatment – I’m sure like many other parents – apart from relying on Damon and his treatment expertise to try to determine the best treatment options, I was reading everything under the sun to try to get a working knowledge of what Theo was up against, what his treatment and clinical trial options were, and what was the state of the science,” Mr. Huff says.

Unfortunately, the characteristics of Theo’s disease, including his very young age at onset and diagnosis of stage 4 metastatic disease, conspired against him, and despite undergoing 14 months of chemotherapy, Theo died of the disease in October 2016, 5 months shy of what would have been his second birthday.

In their grief, Mr. Huff, a real estate lawyer with a practice in Clearwater, Fla., and his wife, Leah, were determined to help other families of children with cancer and settled on the National Pediatric Cancer Foundation. Mr. Huff joined the board of directors of the foundation, which is collaborating with Moffitt Cancer Center on the adaptive therapy trial.

An evolutionary primer (cancer edition)

To get a better idea of just how adaptive therapy works, it is helpful to view cancer cells through the lens of species development, adaptation, extinction, and evolution.

“Cancer cells compete against each other in a dynamic environment. Their tumor ecosystems exhibit spatial and temporal fluctuations in blood-borne nutrients, oxygen, growth factors, immune cells, and hormones,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote.

These influences can affect genetically identical cancer cells, which may begin to diverge from one another depending on their location in a tumor and the availability of nutrients, which in turn can result in two once-identical cells exhibiting different transcription rates for growth factors.

“Ultimately, this may affect the rate of progression through the cell cycle, leading to distinct rates of proliferation and mutational acquisition,” they wrote.

The diverging subpopulations will begin to develop different methods for adapting to the tumor microenvironment, with unique strategies for both accelerating growth and avoiding hazards such as chemotherapy drugs or radiation, the investigators explained.

“By the time a cancer becomes clinically apparent, cancer cells have transformed from a single clone into a diverse community of cell types evolving in response to a spatially and temporally heterogeneous tumor environment. Theoretically, a 10-gram cancer may contain the same order of magnitude of cancer cells as there are humans on earth, with tremendous diversity of phenotypes and environments,” they wrote.

Survival of the fittest

The competition of individuals within and between species described by Darwin also applies to cancer cells, in their interactions both with each other and with stromal cells and immune cells resulting in “the progressive replacement of less fit phenotypes by those that are more fit,” Dr. Reed and colleagues explained.

And just like the old joke about two hikers trying to escape from a charging grizzly bear (one says, “This is futile – we can’t outrun a grizzly,” and the other says, “I only have to outrun you!”), cancer cells only need to be more resistant to therapeutic attack than normal cells that are critical to function.

“This may explain why initial responses in certain solid tumors (notably rhabdomyosarcoma) do not predict eventual survival. The sensitivities of the dominant cancer cell populations dictate the initial response, but it is the ecology and evolution of the rare and more resistant populations that determine cure or relapse,” they wrote.

The endangered species list

As with many types of cancer, the current approach to treating pediatric sarcomas with curative intent is with a “first strike” approach, treating patients with surgery, radiation, and cytotoxic chemotherapy at the maximum tolerated dose for as long as needed or until unacceptable toxicities occur, with the intention of wiping out all cancer cells without permanently injuring normal cells.

The evolutionary analogy to this approach is a mass extinction event such as the meteor strike that is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 66 million years ago. Fossil evidence suggests that the cataclysmic event resulted in the atmosphere being blanketed with dust particles that blocked sunlight and caused massive die-off of plants that dinosaurs needed to survive and were ill-adapted to do without.

In contrast, populations of smaller, more adaptable species of microbes, insects, and animals, including our mammalian ancestors, were able to survive and eventually flourish.

Many patients with localized cancers may be cured with up-front therapy, but others will have residual disease from populations of cells that are intrinsically resistant to therapy or have developed new evasion strategies.

Strike two and the MVP

Dr. Reed and colleagues liken the approach of second-line therapy for treatment of relapsed or refractory disease to the concept of “background extinctions,” using the fate of the passenger pigeon as an example of how a second-strike therapeutic strategy works.

Although the popular conception is that the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction by humans, the species in fact died out because of many different factors, including loss of habitat, isolation of populations leading to a loss of genetic diversity, and disruption of breeding habits.

“Once first strikes of deforestation and hunting reduced the birds to small, fragmented populations, a series of what would otherwise have been minor second strikes pushed the passenger pigeon below its extinction threshold, or minimum viable population,” they said.

The analogy, as it applies to cancer therapy, is the use of second-line or follow-on therapy with one or more agents that the residual cells are at least in theory not resistant to. In the case of fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma, the drug most commonly added in the second-strike approach is vinorelbine.²

“Second strikes should be timed to occur around the time when the first strike has achieved its greatest effect, presumably at the point when the disease becomes clinically undetectable or at a measurable nadir,” Dr. Reed and colleagues wrote. “Ideally, second-strike therapies should have modes of action that require different resistance strategies by the cancer cells than those needed for resistance to the first strike.”

Adaptive therapy

As Dr. Reed and colleagues note, despite optimal therapy, 94% of patients with metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma will experience a relapse within 3 years of diagnosis.1 Clearly the scorched earth or “throw everything you have it” approach no longer works, and that’s where adaptive therapy comes in.

Here again, the authors rely on nature, or rather human interaction with nature, to devise a strategy for keeping the disease at bay when extinction of all cancerous cells cannot be achieved.

They cite the example of agricultural integrated pest management, which seeks to keep harmful insects in check by treating them to suppress but not completely destroy a population, then stopping the use of pesticides, and resuming only when the insect population spikes and again becomes a threat to crops.

“The goal is to limit crop damage while retaining the sensitivity of the insects to the pesticides. Resistance most often comes at a cost. In the absence of the pesticide, sensitive individuals will outcompete resistant individuals,” they wrote.

Adaptive therapy uses the same approach to reduce selection pressures that foster resistance, with patients treated only until a specific, predetermined response is achieved in the dominant population of chemosensitive cells. The treatment is then interrupted and reintroduced only when the tumor rebounds to a certain predetermined size.

In this scenario, cells that retain sensitivity to chemotherapy will be able to reproduce and proliferate more rapidly than drug-resistant cells, and the therapy can then be reintroduced. This strategy is less likely to cause the development and proliferation of resistant cells than conventional intensified chemotherapy, Dr. Reed and colleagues contend.

Putting it to the test

The clinical trial that Dr. Reed and colleagues have initiated, officially titled “Evolutionary Inspired Therapy for Newly Diagnosed, Metastatic, Fusion Positive Rhabdomyosarcoma,” (NCT04388839) contains four arms: three experimental and one active comparator arm.

“We won’t randomize; we don’t feel that it would be fair to randomize patients, because these arms are so different from each other,” Dr. Reed said.

Arm A is the experimental first-strike arm, a 42-week course containing cyclophosphamide delivered intravenously over 60 minutes at a dose ranging from 220 mg to 1200 mg, vinorelbine delivered in an IV push over 6-10 minutes with a dose ranging from 4 mg to 25 mg, and actinomycin D administered via IV over 3-5 minutes at a dose ranging from 0.025 mg to 0.04 mg.

“The idea is that we take the standard of care, and we add a drug – vinorelbine – to make it stronger,” Dr. Reed said. “The idea is that the resistant cell, the cell that escapes, if we start hitting it on day 1 with vinorelbine, we might be able to drive it to extinction.”

Arm B, the second experimental arm, is the second-strike and maintenance arm, in which patients will receive conventional doses of vincristine, actinomycin D, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) until complete response (CR) for 12-42 weeks, and will then be switched to up to 2 years of maintenance with vinorelbine and oral cyclophosphamide.

“Vinorelbine will be added when the cancer is declining or first goes into remission. We try not to wait 42 weeks, which is too long we think, by which time the cancer may be fully adapted and resistant,” he explained.

Arm C is the adaptive therapy arm, in which patients will receive VAC that starts and stops based on response, with the goal of prolonging time to disease progression rather than achieving CR.

Arm D is the active comparator arm, consisting of conventional chemotherapy based on published clinical trials, such as VAC for 42 weeks, or other standard-of-care regimens that may include irinotecan, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and/or etoposide.

A change in thinking

Dr. Reed acknowledges that Arm C, the adaptive therapy arm, “definitely represents a change in thinking for pediatric oncology.”

“The idea is that if you could do this perfectly well, you would be able to take a patient who is diagnosed today and essentially ‘pause’ their disease for a while. Then 5 years from now, if there is a better medicine, you would have gotten that patient to that medicine.”

The optimal approach to treating metastatic fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma may be similar to that used for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with induction, consolidation, and maintenance and the option of delayed intensification, he said.

“But we’re so far away from knowing which series to do that we just need to show that any series – any changing it up – is helpful.”

Dr. Reed said that when he started presenting the concept of adaptive therapy in clinical meetings in 2017, “I was told to come up with a better idea. There were several people who instantly got it, but most people would instantly get angry.”

The common refrain was that adaptive therapy was “giving up.”

But minds began to change in 2018, following presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology of a European study showing that adding 6 months of low-dose chemotherapy maintenance to standard therapy improved the 5-year overall survival rate of pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma from 73.7% to 86.6%.2

Before presenting the idea of adaptive therapy to his colleagues, he ran it by the parents of children with advanced sarcomas, and many were on board with it, he said.

Ricky Huff said that had the option of adaptive therapy been available for Theo, he and his wife would have been willing to try it.

“Of course, everyone has the ability in hindsight to apply critical thinking to decisions that you made or could have made,” he said. “I think is true for many parents, who if they’re presented with information about options will say ‘well if there’s a 1 percent chance, I want that chance for my child, especially for a 5-month-old.”

The decision to choose adaptive therapy is a difficult decision to make, whether for oneself or for one’s son, because it isn’t curative.

“My wife and I have since had a conversation about this, and I do think we would have considered it, although through a lot of difficult conversations,” he said.

“After we got the pathology, knowing that it was metastatic, fusion-positive, and given his age, just doing a brief literature review on my own, I knew what we were up against using 20-year-old treatments, and that the chance of a cure was very, very small.”

If parents of children with metastatic, poor-prognosis rhabdomyosarcoma could be made to understand that adaptive therapy would entail shorter and fewer hospital stays, and cumulatively less toxic chemotherapy, and could prolong the lives of their children, the option might be more acceptable, he said.

And as Dr. Reed mentioned, prolonging time to progression offers hope of additional therapies to come.

“The whole time that my son was being treated, I hoped that there was going to be something else that came out, that a new trial would be launched because they found a way to drug a mutation, or treat it with immunotherapy – something that was going to give us a better option.”

Asked whether he would be willing to share his experiences in this article, Mr. Huff said that “I am willing to, in whatever small way I can, make an impact, and hopefully save another family from what we experienced.”

References

1. Reed DR et al. Cancer. 2020 Jun 1;126(11):2577-87 2. Bisogno G et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:18_suppl,LBA-2

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A new systematic review and meta-analysis finds that unvaccinated cancer patients who contracted COVID-19 last year, were more than two times more likely – than people without cancer – to develop a case of COVID-19 so severe it required hospitalization in an intensive care unit.

“Our study provides the most precise measure to date of the effect of COVID-19 in cancer patients,” wrote researchers who were led by Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, a specialist in population science with the Stony Brook Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Boffetta and colleagues also found that patients with hematologic neoplasms had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 comparable to that of all cancers combined.

Cancer patients have long been considered to be among those patients who are at high risk of developing COVID-19, and if they contract the disease, they are at high risk of having poor outcomes. Other high-risk patients include those with hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or COPD, or the elderly. But how high the risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease is for cancer patients hasn’t yet been documented on a wide scale.

The study, which was made available as a preprint on medRxiv on Oct. 23, is based on an analysis of COVID-19 cases that were documented in 35 reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and studies indexed in PubMed from authors in North America, Europe, and Asia.

In this study, the pooled odds ratio for mortality for all patients with any cancer was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.94; 24 studies). For ICU admission, the odds ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.90-3.02; I2 0.0%; 5 studies). And, for disease severity or hospitalization, it was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.60-2.72; I2 92.1%; 15 studies). The pooled mortality odds ratio for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI, 1.87-2.44; I2 20.8%; 8 studies).

Their findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, confirmed the results of a similar analysis from China published as a preprint in May 2020. The analysis included 181,323 patients (23,736 cancer patients) from 26 studies reported an odds ratio of 2.54 (95% CI, 1.47-4.42). “Cancer patients with COVID-19 have an increased likelihood of death compared to non-cancer COVID-19 patients,” Venkatesulu et al. wrote. And a systematic review and meta-analysis of five studies of 2,619 patients published in October 2020 in Medicine also found a significantly higher risk of death from COVID-19 among cancer patients (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.06; P = .023; I2 = 26.4%).

Fakih et al., writing in the journal Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy conducted a meta-analysis early last year finding a threefold increase for admission to the intensive care unit, an almost fourfold increase for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a fivefold increase for being intubated.

The three studies show that mortality rates were higher early in the pandemic “when diagnosis and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 might have been delayed, resulting in higher death rate,” Boffetta et al. wrote, adding that their analysis showed only a twofold increase most likely because it was a year-long analysis.

“Future studies will be able to better analyze this association for the different subtypes of cancer. Furthermore, they will eventually be able to evaluate whether the difference among vaccinated population is reduced,” Boffetta et al. wrote.

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including the fact that many of the studies included in the analysis did not include sex, age, comorbidities, and therapy. Nor were the authors able to analyze specific cancers other than hematologic neoplasms.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The use of robotically assisted surgical devices for benign and malignant tumors is here to stay, but the decision to perform robot-assisted surgery should be driven by clinical outcomes, not convenience, physicians say.

“The problem in minimally invasive surgery, especially in cancer surgery, is that the concept has been flip-flopped,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon turned patient advocate. “The main purpose of surgery should be removal of diseased tissue or repair of damaged tissue with adequate safety. The size of the incision on that triage scheme is secondary.”

In 2013, Dr. Noorchashm’s wife, Amy Reed, MD, an anesthesiologist, had a hysterectomy for treatment of severe uterine fibroids. The surgery was performed with a laparoscopic power morcellator, which led to the dissemination of cells from a previously undetected abdominal lesion. She was later diagnosed with stage 4 leiomyosarcoma and died in May 2017.

Dr. Noorchashm said the problem with robotic surgery isn’t the technology itself or how it’s used, but why it’s used in the first place. “Not only was there an extreme level of laxity with respect to the malignant potential of fibroids, but also that the size of the incision supersedes the safety of the procedure.”

The ultimate goal of oncologic surgery is to achieve an en bloc resection with clean surgical margins and removal of the tumor intact, Dr. Noorchashm said. The only scientific way of showing the benefits or therapeutic equivalence of new technology is through noninferiority comparison trials.
 

Robotic surgery inching toward $14 billion in revenue by 2028

Although robotic surgical technology has been in use since the 1990s, the technology is still considered to be its infancy. The first Food and Drug Administration–approved robotics platform, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) was approved by the FDA in 2000. And, now, with its patent expiring in 2022, competitors will be developing and launching new products for abdominal and colorectal surgery, partial knee replacements, cardiovascular procedures, head and neck surgery, and spinal procedures.

Robotic surgery is a rapidly expanding area with new product launches announced daily. In August 2021, the market research firm Grand View Research, reported the surgical robot marketplace is projected to reach $14 billion by 2028, up from $3.6 billion this year.

“This new era of robotic-assisted surgery attracts both surgeons and patients. Robotic surgery has reshaped our surgeries over the last 2 decades, and robots are now used in almost in every surgical field. Still, as surgeons, we continue to look – with great interest – to new robotic companies that may be able to provide better robots in a more cost-effective manner,” wrote urologists Ahmad Almujalhem and Koon Ho Rha in a review published in the journal BJUI Compass.

However, the authors wrote that, although the market is competitive, cost remains an issue, as are competing interests. In addition, many companies are creating replicas of existing technologies instead of focusing on new designs and new technology. “Although the da Vinci system propelled many robots to market, there has been no significant improvement in the console,” they added.

The technology is attractive to both surgeons and patients. “Surgeons are attracted to newer technologies, better vision, and easier learning curves. Patients are also attracted to robotic surgery, as this technology is considered state of the art and is associated with reduced pain and scar size,” the authors wrote.
 

Outcomes depend on many variables

In terms of outcomes, the literature is mixed. It largely depends on a number of variables from the site of surgery, the type of cancer, technology used, and the surgeon’s skill.

Jung Mogg Kim, MD, PhD, a microbiologist with Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, published a systemic review and meta-analysis of 27 clinical reports in PLoS ONE assessing clinical outcomes. They found that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not result in statistically superior outcomes, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, except for lower estimated blood loss with robots. Operative time and total complications rates were “significantly more favorable” with conventional laparoscopic procedures.

Thomas E. Ahlering, MD, a robotic prostatectomy specialist at the University of California, Irvine, explained that the success or failure of robot-assisted surgery can be highly dependent on the body site and tumor type.

“The oncologic outcome, as long as the surgeon is up to speed, is not going to be better, but the goal is to be as good,” he said in an interview.

In most cases, Dr. Ahlering said, the goal of surgery is to remove a viable tumor with clean margins while leaving the organ intact. But in prostate surgery, the goal is to remove the entire organ while trying to preserve urinary continence and sexual function.

“One of the biggest benefits of the robot is that we’re able to use it in a laparoscopic environment meaning that we need a pneumoperitoneum [which] dramatically decreases bleeding. In prostate cancer, the area is so highly vascular that bleeding is a major issue,” he said.

The same benefits of reduced bleeding, improved visualization, and precision are also seen with robotic-assisted surgery for renal cancer, he noted.

He also emphasized that positive surgical margins, while less desirable than complete elimination of malignant cells, is not nearly as dire in prostate cancer as it is in surgery for other malignancies, such as soft-tissue sarcomas.

“The majority of cases are never going to recur, and if they do recur they essentially never lead to metastatic disease to bone, much less to prostate cancer–related death. The only thing they can do is slightly increase the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] recurrence,” he said.

Assuming that outcomes are comparable between an open procedure, conventional laparoscopic procedure, or robot-assisted approach, surgeons “will almost all go for the robot. It’s easier on the surgeon and it’s easier on the system,” Dr. Ahlering said.

In skilled hands for select patients, the use of a carefully researched and well-designed surgical assistive device can result in outcomes that are comparable with those seen in open surgical procedures, with robot-assisted surgery offering the possibility of less perioperative bleeding, lower postoperative morbidity, and faster recovery times.

“In our program we have been using robots to perform robotic radical prostatectomy and nephron-sparing surgery – partial nephrectomy and we’re also using them to perform intracorporeal bowel reconstruction and robotic radical cystectomy,” said Ashutosh Tewari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Robot-assisted surgery can be used “anywhere where you have to be selective, anywhere where you have to be reconstructive, anywhere where [assisted] vision can help, anywhere where the lack of bleeding will be of help to patients, and anywhere where a smaller incision can achieve the same goals,” Dr. Tewari said in an interview. Dr. Tewari’s Mount Sinai colleagues reported at the 2021 American Urological Association annual meeting, robotic-assisted salvage radical and partial nephrectomies were found to be safe and feasible procedures in patients with metachronous kidney tumors. For patients with early invasive cancer (stage pT1), oncologic outcomes with robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were similar to those of patients who underwent radical surgery. The authors concluded that salvage robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy “can be considered in this group of patients due to the risk of future recurrences and need to preserve renal function.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline for prostate cancer, updated in September 2021, states that “laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are commonly used and are considered comparable to conventional approaches in experienced hands.”

In 2018, researchers in a multinational comparison trial reported that patients with cervical cancer who were randomly assigned to minimally invasive robot-assisted radical hysterectomy had significantly lower rates of both disease-free survival and overall survival than women randomized to open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The use of robotically assisted surgical (RAS) devices could possibly create a “shielding layer” between the surgical team and patient reducing the risk of infection, according to Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, FMH, a neurosurgeon with the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Zemmar and colleagues recently published a perspective in Nature Machine Intelligence on trends in the use of surgical robots.

“In the operating theatre, robots can place intravascular lines, intubate the patient and manage the airway. The integration of a robot as a shielding layer, physically separating the health care worker and patient, is a powerful tool to combat the omnipresent fear of pathogen contamination and maintain surgical volumes,” Dr. Zemmar and colleagues wrote.
 

Surgical vs. clinical outcomes

In July 2021, this news organization reported that clinical trials of RAS for nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures were looking primarily at cosmetic or surgical outcomes and were not collecting cancer outcomes and if they were, it was secondary to cosmetic or surgical outcomes.

The FDA followed up by issuing a safety communication in August warning patients and providers that neither the safety nor efficacy of RAS for use in mastectomy procedures or treatment of breast cancer have been established.

“In addition, the FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted using RAS devices to perform mastectomies for the prevention or treatment of cancer without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the communication stated.

Dr. Tewari disclosed relationships with various companies. Dr. Noorchashm had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ahlering disclosed past funding or other considerations from Intuitive Robotics.

The use of robotically assisted surgical devices for benign and malignant tumors is here to stay, but the decision to perform robot-assisted surgery should be driven by clinical outcomes, not convenience, physicians say.

“The problem in minimally invasive surgery, especially in cancer surgery, is that the concept has been flip-flopped,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon turned patient advocate. “The main purpose of surgery should be removal of diseased tissue or repair of damaged tissue with adequate safety. The size of the incision on that triage scheme is secondary.”

In 2013, Dr. Noorchashm’s wife, Amy Reed, MD, an anesthesiologist, had a hysterectomy for treatment of severe uterine fibroids. The surgery was performed with a laparoscopic power morcellator, which led to the dissemination of cells from a previously undetected abdominal lesion. She was later diagnosed with stage 4 leiomyosarcoma and died in May 2017.

Dr. Noorchashm said the problem with robotic surgery isn’t the technology itself or how it’s used, but why it’s used in the first place. “Not only was there an extreme level of laxity with respect to the malignant potential of fibroids, but also that the size of the incision supersedes the safety of the procedure.”

The ultimate goal of oncologic surgery is to achieve an en bloc resection with clean surgical margins and removal of the tumor intact, Dr. Noorchashm said. The only scientific way of showing the benefits or therapeutic equivalence of new technology is through noninferiority comparison trials.
 

Robotic surgery inching toward $14 billion in revenue by 2028

Although robotic surgical technology has been in use since the 1990s, the technology is still considered to be its infancy. The first Food and Drug Administration–approved robotics platform, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) was approved by the FDA in 2000. And, now, with its patent expiring in 2022, competitors will be developing and launching new products for abdominal and colorectal surgery, partial knee replacements, cardiovascular procedures, head and neck surgery, and spinal procedures.

Robotic surgery is a rapidly expanding area with new product launches announced daily. In August 2021, the market research firm Grand View Research, reported the surgical robot marketplace is projected to reach $14 billion by 2028, up from $3.6 billion this year.

“This new era of robotic-assisted surgery attracts both surgeons and patients. Robotic surgery has reshaped our surgeries over the last 2 decades, and robots are now used in almost in every surgical field. Still, as surgeons, we continue to look – with great interest – to new robotic companies that may be able to provide better robots in a more cost-effective manner,” wrote urologists Ahmad Almujalhem and Koon Ho Rha in a review published in the journal BJUI Compass.

However, the authors wrote that, although the market is competitive, cost remains an issue, as are competing interests. In addition, many companies are creating replicas of existing technologies instead of focusing on new designs and new technology. “Although the da Vinci system propelled many robots to market, there has been no significant improvement in the console,” they added.

The technology is attractive to both surgeons and patients. “Surgeons are attracted to newer technologies, better vision, and easier learning curves. Patients are also attracted to robotic surgery, as this technology is considered state of the art and is associated with reduced pain and scar size,” the authors wrote.
 

Outcomes depend on many variables

In terms of outcomes, the literature is mixed. It largely depends on a number of variables from the site of surgery, the type of cancer, technology used, and the surgeon’s skill.

Jung Mogg Kim, MD, PhD, a microbiologist with Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, published a systemic review and meta-analysis of 27 clinical reports in PLoS ONE assessing clinical outcomes. They found that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not result in statistically superior outcomes, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, except for lower estimated blood loss with robots. Operative time and total complications rates were “significantly more favorable” with conventional laparoscopic procedures.

Thomas E. Ahlering, MD, a robotic prostatectomy specialist at the University of California, Irvine, explained that the success or failure of robot-assisted surgery can be highly dependent on the body site and tumor type.

“The oncologic outcome, as long as the surgeon is up to speed, is not going to be better, but the goal is to be as good,” he said in an interview.

In most cases, Dr. Ahlering said, the goal of surgery is to remove a viable tumor with clean margins while leaving the organ intact. But in prostate surgery, the goal is to remove the entire organ while trying to preserve urinary continence and sexual function.

“One of the biggest benefits of the robot is that we’re able to use it in a laparoscopic environment meaning that we need a pneumoperitoneum [which] dramatically decreases bleeding. In prostate cancer, the area is so highly vascular that bleeding is a major issue,” he said.

The same benefits of reduced bleeding, improved visualization, and precision are also seen with robotic-assisted surgery for renal cancer, he noted.

He also emphasized that positive surgical margins, while less desirable than complete elimination of malignant cells, is not nearly as dire in prostate cancer as it is in surgery for other malignancies, such as soft-tissue sarcomas.

“The majority of cases are never going to recur, and if they do recur they essentially never lead to metastatic disease to bone, much less to prostate cancer–related death. The only thing they can do is slightly increase the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] recurrence,” he said.

Assuming that outcomes are comparable between an open procedure, conventional laparoscopic procedure, or robot-assisted approach, surgeons “will almost all go for the robot. It’s easier on the surgeon and it’s easier on the system,” Dr. Ahlering said.

In skilled hands for select patients, the use of a carefully researched and well-designed surgical assistive device can result in outcomes that are comparable with those seen in open surgical procedures, with robot-assisted surgery offering the possibility of less perioperative bleeding, lower postoperative morbidity, and faster recovery times.

“In our program we have been using robots to perform robotic radical prostatectomy and nephron-sparing surgery – partial nephrectomy and we’re also using them to perform intracorporeal bowel reconstruction and robotic radical cystectomy,” said Ashutosh Tewari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Robot-assisted surgery can be used “anywhere where you have to be selective, anywhere where you have to be reconstructive, anywhere where [assisted] vision can help, anywhere where the lack of bleeding will be of help to patients, and anywhere where a smaller incision can achieve the same goals,” Dr. Tewari said in an interview. Dr. Tewari’s Mount Sinai colleagues reported at the 2021 American Urological Association annual meeting, robotic-assisted salvage radical and partial nephrectomies were found to be safe and feasible procedures in patients with metachronous kidney tumors. For patients with early invasive cancer (stage pT1), oncologic outcomes with robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were similar to those of patients who underwent radical surgery. The authors concluded that salvage robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy “can be considered in this group of patients due to the risk of future recurrences and need to preserve renal function.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline for prostate cancer, updated in September 2021, states that “laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are commonly used and are considered comparable to conventional approaches in experienced hands.”

In 2018, researchers in a multinational comparison trial reported that patients with cervical cancer who were randomly assigned to minimally invasive robot-assisted radical hysterectomy had significantly lower rates of both disease-free survival and overall survival than women randomized to open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The use of robotically assisted surgical (RAS) devices could possibly create a “shielding layer” between the surgical team and patient reducing the risk of infection, according to Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, FMH, a neurosurgeon with the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Zemmar and colleagues recently published a perspective in Nature Machine Intelligence on trends in the use of surgical robots.

“In the operating theatre, robots can place intravascular lines, intubate the patient and manage the airway. The integration of a robot as a shielding layer, physically separating the health care worker and patient, is a powerful tool to combat the omnipresent fear of pathogen contamination and maintain surgical volumes,” Dr. Zemmar and colleagues wrote.
 

Surgical vs. clinical outcomes

In July 2021, this news organization reported that clinical trials of RAS for nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures were looking primarily at cosmetic or surgical outcomes and were not collecting cancer outcomes and if they were, it was secondary to cosmetic or surgical outcomes.

The FDA followed up by issuing a safety communication in August warning patients and providers that neither the safety nor efficacy of RAS for use in mastectomy procedures or treatment of breast cancer have been established.

“In addition, the FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted using RAS devices to perform mastectomies for the prevention or treatment of cancer without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the communication stated.

Dr. Tewari disclosed relationships with various companies. Dr. Noorchashm had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ahlering disclosed past funding or other considerations from Intuitive Robotics.

The use of robotically assisted surgical devices for benign and malignant tumors is here to stay, but the decision to perform robot-assisted surgery should be driven by clinical outcomes, not convenience, physicians say.

“The problem in minimally invasive surgery, especially in cancer surgery, is that the concept has been flip-flopped,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a retired cardiothoracic surgeon turned patient advocate. “The main purpose of surgery should be removal of diseased tissue or repair of damaged tissue with adequate safety. The size of the incision on that triage scheme is secondary.”

In 2013, Dr. Noorchashm’s wife, Amy Reed, MD, an anesthesiologist, had a hysterectomy for treatment of severe uterine fibroids. The surgery was performed with a laparoscopic power morcellator, which led to the dissemination of cells from a previously undetected abdominal lesion. She was later diagnosed with stage 4 leiomyosarcoma and died in May 2017.

Dr. Noorchashm said the problem with robotic surgery isn’t the technology itself or how it’s used, but why it’s used in the first place. “Not only was there an extreme level of laxity with respect to the malignant potential of fibroids, but also that the size of the incision supersedes the safety of the procedure.”

The ultimate goal of oncologic surgery is to achieve an en bloc resection with clean surgical margins and removal of the tumor intact, Dr. Noorchashm said. The only scientific way of showing the benefits or therapeutic equivalence of new technology is through noninferiority comparison trials.
 

Robotic surgery inching toward $14 billion in revenue by 2028

Although robotic surgical technology has been in use since the 1990s, the technology is still considered to be its infancy. The first Food and Drug Administration–approved robotics platform, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical) was approved by the FDA in 2000. And, now, with its patent expiring in 2022, competitors will be developing and launching new products for abdominal and colorectal surgery, partial knee replacements, cardiovascular procedures, head and neck surgery, and spinal procedures.

Robotic surgery is a rapidly expanding area with new product launches announced daily. In August 2021, the market research firm Grand View Research, reported the surgical robot marketplace is projected to reach $14 billion by 2028, up from $3.6 billion this year.

“This new era of robotic-assisted surgery attracts both surgeons and patients. Robotic surgery has reshaped our surgeries over the last 2 decades, and robots are now used in almost in every surgical field. Still, as surgeons, we continue to look – with great interest – to new robotic companies that may be able to provide better robots in a more cost-effective manner,” wrote urologists Ahmad Almujalhem and Koon Ho Rha in a review published in the journal BJUI Compass.

However, the authors wrote that, although the market is competitive, cost remains an issue, as are competing interests. In addition, many companies are creating replicas of existing technologies instead of focusing on new designs and new technology. “Although the da Vinci system propelled many robots to market, there has been no significant improvement in the console,” they added.

The technology is attractive to both surgeons and patients. “Surgeons are attracted to newer technologies, better vision, and easier learning curves. Patients are also attracted to robotic surgery, as this technology is considered state of the art and is associated with reduced pain and scar size,” the authors wrote.
 

Outcomes depend on many variables

In terms of outcomes, the literature is mixed. It largely depends on a number of variables from the site of surgery, the type of cancer, technology used, and the surgeon’s skill.

Jung Mogg Kim, MD, PhD, a microbiologist with Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, published a systemic review and meta-analysis of 27 clinical reports in PLoS ONE assessing clinical outcomes. They found that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not result in statistically superior outcomes, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, except for lower estimated blood loss with robots. Operative time and total complications rates were “significantly more favorable” with conventional laparoscopic procedures.

Thomas E. Ahlering, MD, a robotic prostatectomy specialist at the University of California, Irvine, explained that the success or failure of robot-assisted surgery can be highly dependent on the body site and tumor type.

“The oncologic outcome, as long as the surgeon is up to speed, is not going to be better, but the goal is to be as good,” he said in an interview.

In most cases, Dr. Ahlering said, the goal of surgery is to remove a viable tumor with clean margins while leaving the organ intact. But in prostate surgery, the goal is to remove the entire organ while trying to preserve urinary continence and sexual function.

“One of the biggest benefits of the robot is that we’re able to use it in a laparoscopic environment meaning that we need a pneumoperitoneum [which] dramatically decreases bleeding. In prostate cancer, the area is so highly vascular that bleeding is a major issue,” he said.

The same benefits of reduced bleeding, improved visualization, and precision are also seen with robotic-assisted surgery for renal cancer, he noted.

He also emphasized that positive surgical margins, while less desirable than complete elimination of malignant cells, is not nearly as dire in prostate cancer as it is in surgery for other malignancies, such as soft-tissue sarcomas.

“The majority of cases are never going to recur, and if they do recur they essentially never lead to metastatic disease to bone, much less to prostate cancer–related death. The only thing they can do is slightly increase the PSA [prostate-specific antigen] recurrence,” he said.

Assuming that outcomes are comparable between an open procedure, conventional laparoscopic procedure, or robot-assisted approach, surgeons “will almost all go for the robot. It’s easier on the surgeon and it’s easier on the system,” Dr. Ahlering said.

In skilled hands for select patients, the use of a carefully researched and well-designed surgical assistive device can result in outcomes that are comparable with those seen in open surgical procedures, with robot-assisted surgery offering the possibility of less perioperative bleeding, lower postoperative morbidity, and faster recovery times.

“In our program we have been using robots to perform robotic radical prostatectomy and nephron-sparing surgery – partial nephrectomy and we’re also using them to perform intracorporeal bowel reconstruction and robotic radical cystectomy,” said Ashutosh Tewari, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Robot-assisted surgery can be used “anywhere where you have to be selective, anywhere where you have to be reconstructive, anywhere where [assisted] vision can help, anywhere where the lack of bleeding will be of help to patients, and anywhere where a smaller incision can achieve the same goals,” Dr. Tewari said in an interview. Dr. Tewari’s Mount Sinai colleagues reported at the 2021 American Urological Association annual meeting, robotic-assisted salvage radical and partial nephrectomies were found to be safe and feasible procedures in patients with metachronous kidney tumors. For patients with early invasive cancer (stage pT1), oncologic outcomes with robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy were similar to those of patients who underwent radical surgery. The authors concluded that salvage robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy “can be considered in this group of patients due to the risk of future recurrences and need to preserve renal function.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline for prostate cancer, updated in September 2021, states that “laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are commonly used and are considered comparable to conventional approaches in experienced hands.”

In 2018, researchers in a multinational comparison trial reported that patients with cervical cancer who were randomly assigned to minimally invasive robot-assisted radical hysterectomy had significantly lower rates of both disease-free survival and overall survival than women randomized to open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The use of robotically assisted surgical (RAS) devices could possibly create a “shielding layer” between the surgical team and patient reducing the risk of infection, according to Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, FMH, a neurosurgeon with the University of Louisville (Ky.) Dr. Zemmar and colleagues recently published a perspective in Nature Machine Intelligence on trends in the use of surgical robots.

“In the operating theatre, robots can place intravascular lines, intubate the patient and manage the airway. The integration of a robot as a shielding layer, physically separating the health care worker and patient, is a powerful tool to combat the omnipresent fear of pathogen contamination and maintain surgical volumes,” Dr. Zemmar and colleagues wrote.
 

Surgical vs. clinical outcomes

In July 2021, this news organization reported that clinical trials of RAS for nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures were looking primarily at cosmetic or surgical outcomes and were not collecting cancer outcomes and if they were, it was secondary to cosmetic or surgical outcomes.

The FDA followed up by issuing a safety communication in August warning patients and providers that neither the safety nor efficacy of RAS for use in mastectomy procedures or treatment of breast cancer have been established.

“In addition, the FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted using RAS devices to perform mastectomies for the prevention or treatment of cancer without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the communication stated.

Dr. Tewari disclosed relationships with various companies. Dr. Noorchashm had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ahlering disclosed past funding or other considerations from Intuitive Robotics.

Investigators in China have identified 14 immune-related genes associated with survival in osteosarcoma.

When they combined them into a risk score and added one additional factor – metastases at diagnosis – the model was an “excellent” predictor of 1-year survival, the team said (area under the curve, 0.947; 95% confidence interval, 0.832-0.972).

“The survival-associated” immune-related genes (IRGs) “examined in this study have potential for identifying prognosis in osteosarcoma and may be clinically useful as relevant clinical biomarkers and candidate targets for anticancer therapy,” said investigators led by Wangmi Liu, MD, of Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

They explained that it’s often difficult to distinguish high- and low-risk patients at osteosarcoma diagnosis. To address the issue, they analyzed the genomic signatures of 84 patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas and their associated clinical information.

The team split their subjects evenly into high-risk and low-risk groups based on a score developed from their genetic signatures. A total of 26 patients in the high-risk group (61.9%) died over a median follow up of 4.1 years versus only 1 (2.4%) in the low-risk group.

The risk score also correlated positively with B-cell tumor infiltration, and negatively with infiltration of CD8 T cells and macrophages.

Overall, 16 genes were significantly up-regulated, and 187 genes were significantly down-regulated in the high-risk group, including three survival-associated IRGs: CCL2, CD79A, and FPR1.

The differentially expressed genes were most significantly associated with transmembrane signaling receptor activity and inflammatory response. The team noted that “it has been reported that inflammatory response plays a critical role in tumor initiation, promotion, malignant conversion, invasion, and metastases.”

Of the 14 survival-associated IRGs, 5 have been reported before in osteosarcoma. The other nine were deduced from computational analysis and may be potential treatment targets, including bone morphogenetic protein 8b (BMP8b). Another member of the BMP family, BMP9, has been shown to promote the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells, “which is similar to this study’s finding that BMP8b was a risk factor in osteosarcoma. Therefore, the role of BMP8b in osteosarcoma needs further research,” the team said.

“Because the database provides limited clinical information, other important factors, such as staging and grading, were not included in our analysis. Therefore, extrapolation based on the findings must be done very carefully,” they cautioned.

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others. The investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Investigators in China have identified 14 immune-related genes associated with survival in osteosarcoma.

When they combined them into a risk score and added one additional factor – metastases at diagnosis – the model was an “excellent” predictor of 1-year survival, the team said (area under the curve, 0.947; 95% confidence interval, 0.832-0.972).

“The survival-associated” immune-related genes (IRGs) “examined in this study have potential for identifying prognosis in osteosarcoma and may be clinically useful as relevant clinical biomarkers and candidate targets for anticancer therapy,” said investigators led by Wangmi Liu, MD, of Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

They explained that it’s often difficult to distinguish high- and low-risk patients at osteosarcoma diagnosis. To address the issue, they analyzed the genomic signatures of 84 patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas and their associated clinical information.

The team split their subjects evenly into high-risk and low-risk groups based on a score developed from their genetic signatures. A total of 26 patients in the high-risk group (61.9%) died over a median follow up of 4.1 years versus only 1 (2.4%) in the low-risk group.

The risk score also correlated positively with B-cell tumor infiltration, and negatively with infiltration of CD8 T cells and macrophages.

Overall, 16 genes were significantly up-regulated, and 187 genes were significantly down-regulated in the high-risk group, including three survival-associated IRGs: CCL2, CD79A, and FPR1.

The differentially expressed genes were most significantly associated with transmembrane signaling receptor activity and inflammatory response. The team noted that “it has been reported that inflammatory response plays a critical role in tumor initiation, promotion, malignant conversion, invasion, and metastases.”

Of the 14 survival-associated IRGs, 5 have been reported before in osteosarcoma. The other nine were deduced from computational analysis and may be potential treatment targets, including bone morphogenetic protein 8b (BMP8b). Another member of the BMP family, BMP9, has been shown to promote the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells, “which is similar to this study’s finding that BMP8b was a risk factor in osteosarcoma. Therefore, the role of BMP8b in osteosarcoma needs further research,” the team said.

“Because the database provides limited clinical information, other important factors, such as staging and grading, were not included in our analysis. Therefore, extrapolation based on the findings must be done very carefully,” they cautioned.

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others. The investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Investigators in China have identified 14 immune-related genes associated with survival in osteosarcoma.

When they combined them into a risk score and added one additional factor – metastases at diagnosis – the model was an “excellent” predictor of 1-year survival, the team said (area under the curve, 0.947; 95% confidence interval, 0.832-0.972).

“The survival-associated” immune-related genes (IRGs) “examined in this study have potential for identifying prognosis in osteosarcoma and may be clinically useful as relevant clinical biomarkers and candidate targets for anticancer therapy,” said investigators led by Wangmi Liu, MD, of Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

They explained that it’s often difficult to distinguish high- and low-risk patients at osteosarcoma diagnosis. To address the issue, they analyzed the genomic signatures of 84 patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas and their associated clinical information.

The team split their subjects evenly into high-risk and low-risk groups based on a score developed from their genetic signatures. A total of 26 patients in the high-risk group (61.9%) died over a median follow up of 4.1 years versus only 1 (2.4%) in the low-risk group.

The risk score also correlated positively with B-cell tumor infiltration, and negatively with infiltration of CD8 T cells and macrophages.

Overall, 16 genes were significantly up-regulated, and 187 genes were significantly down-regulated in the high-risk group, including three survival-associated IRGs: CCL2, CD79A, and FPR1.

The differentially expressed genes were most significantly associated with transmembrane signaling receptor activity and inflammatory response. The team noted that “it has been reported that inflammatory response plays a critical role in tumor initiation, promotion, malignant conversion, invasion, and metastases.”

Of the 14 survival-associated IRGs, 5 have been reported before in osteosarcoma. The other nine were deduced from computational analysis and may be potential treatment targets, including bone morphogenetic protein 8b (BMP8b). Another member of the BMP family, BMP9, has been shown to promote the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells, “which is similar to this study’s finding that BMP8b was a risk factor in osteosarcoma. Therefore, the role of BMP8b in osteosarcoma needs further research,” the team said.

“Because the database provides limited clinical information, other important factors, such as staging and grading, were not included in our analysis. Therefore, extrapolation based on the findings must be done very carefully,” they cautioned.

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and others. The investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

Many patients with cancer, as well as doctors in fields other than oncology, are unaware of just how much progress has been made in recent years in the treatment of cancer, particularly with immunotherapy.

This is the main finding from two studies presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The survey of patients found that most don’t understand how immunotherapy works, and the survey of doctors found that many working outside of the cancer field are using information on survival that is wildly out of date.

When a patient is first told they have cancer, counseling is usually done by a surgeon or general medical doctor and not an oncologist, said Conleth Murphy, MD, of Bon Secours Hospital Cork, Ireland, and coauthor of the second study.

Noncancer doctors often grossly underestimate patients’ chances of survival, Dr. Murphy’s study found. This suggests that doctors who practice outside of cancer care may be working with the same information they learned in medical school, he said.

“These patients must be spared the traumatic effects of being handed a death sentence that no longer reflects the current reality,” Dr. Murphy said.

After receiving a diagnosis of cancer, “patients often immediately have pressing questions about what it means for their future,” he noted. A common question is: “How long do I have left?”

Nononcologists should refrain from answering patients’ questions with numbers, Dr. Murphy said.

Family doctors are likely to be influenced by the experience they have had with specific cancer patients in their practice, said Cyril Bonin, MD, a general practitioner in Usson-du-Poitou, France, who has 900 patients in his practice.

He sees about 10 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer each year. In addition, about 50 of his patients are in active treatment for cancer or have finished treatment and are considered cancer survivors.

“It is not entirely realistic for us to expect practitioners who deal with hundreds of different diseases to keep up with every facet of a rapidly changing oncology landscape,” said Marco Donia, MD, an expert in immunotherapy from the University of Copenhagen.

That landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly since immunotherapy was added to the arsenal. Immunotherapy is a way to fine-tune your immune system to fight cancer.

For example, in the past, patients with metastatic melanoma would have an average survival of about 1 year. But now, some patients who have responded to immunotherapy are still alive 10 years later.
 

Findings from the patient survey

It is important that patients stay well informed because immunotherapy is a “complex treatment that is too often mistaken for a miracle cure,” said Paris Kosmidis, MD, the co-author of the patient survey.

“The more patients know about it, the better the communication with their medical team and thus the better their outcomes are likely to be,” said Dr. Kosmidis, who is co-founder and chief medical officer of CareAcross, an online service that provides personalized education for cancer patients

The survey was of 5,589 patients with cancer who were recruited from CareAcross clients from the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The survey asked them about how immunotherapy works, what it costs, and its side effects.

Almost half responded “not sure/do not know,” but about a third correctly answered that immunotherapy “activates the immune system to kill cancer cells.”

Similarly, more than half thought that immunotherapy started working right away, while only 20% correctly answered that it takes several weeks to become effective.

“This is important because patients need to start their therapy with realistic expectations, for example to avoid disappointment when their symptoms take some time to disappear,” Dr. Kosmidis said.

A small group of 24 patients with lung cancer who had been treated with immunotherapy got many correct answers, but they overestimated the intensity of side effects, compared with other therapies.

“Well-informed patients who know what to expect can do 90% of the job of preventing side effects from becoming severe by having them treated early,” said Dr. Donia, of the University of Copenhagen.

Most cancer patients were also unaware of the cost of immunotherapy, which can exceed $100,000 a year, Dr. Kosmidis said.
 

Results of the doctor survey

The other survey presented at the meeting looked at how much doctors know about survival for 12 of the most common cancers.

Dr. Murphy and colleagues asked 301 noncancer doctors and 46 cancer specialists to estimate the percentage of patients who could be expected to live for 5 years after diagnosis (a measure known as the 5-year survival rate).

Answers from the two groups were compared and graded according to cancer survival statistics from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland.

Both groups of doctors had a hard time estimating the survival of common cancers.

Nononcologists accurately predicted 5-year survival for just two of the cancer types, while the cancer specialists got it right for four cancer types.

However, the noncancer doctors had a more pessimistic outlook on cancer survival generally and severely underestimated the chances of survival in specific cancers, particularly stage IV breast cancer. The survival for this cancer has “evolved considerably over time and now reaches 40% in Ireland,” Dr. Murphy pointed out.

“These results are in line with what we had expected because most physicians’ knowledge of oncology dates back to whatever education they received during their years of training, so their perceptions of cancer prognosis are likely to lag behind the major survival gains achieved in the recent past,” Dr. Murphy said.

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

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.

The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.

The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.

Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.

The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.

As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.

“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”

With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.

“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.

In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).

When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.

However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.

Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.

“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”

The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.

Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.

Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One in three of the most popular news and feature articles on social media about the treatment of the four leading cancers in the United States contains misinformation, and the majority of those have the potential to harm patients, according to a new analysis.

Of the 200 most popular articles (50 each for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer), about a third (32.5%, n = 65) contained misinformation.

Among these articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50/65) contained harmful information.

“The Internet is a leading source of health misinformation,” the study authors wrote. This is “particularly true for social media, where false information spreads faster and more broadly than fact-checked information,” they said, citing other research.

“We need to address these issues head on,” said lead author Skyler Johnson, MD, of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.

“As a medical community, we can’t ignore the problem of cancer misinformation on social media or ask our patients to ignore it. We must empathize with our patients and help them when they encounter this type of information,” he said in a statement. “My goal is to help answer their questions, and provide cancer patients with accurate information that will give them the best chance for the best outcome.”

The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The study period ran from 2018 to 2019, and looked at articles posted on social media platforms Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or Pinterest. Popularity was measured by engagement with readers, such as upvotes, comments, reactions, and shares.

Some of the articles came from long-established news entities such as CBS News, The New York Times, and medical journals, while others came from fleeting crowdfunding web pages and fledging nontraditional news sites.

One example of popular and harmful misinformation highlighted by Dr. Johnson in an interview was titled, “44-Year-Old Mother Claims CBD Oil Cured Her of Breast Cancer within 5 Months.” Posted on truththeory.com in February 2018, the article is tagged as “opinion” by the publisher and in turn links to another news story about the same woman in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.

The ideas and claims in such articles can be very influential, Jennifer L. Lycette, MD, suggested in a recent blog post.

“After 18 years as a cancer doctor, it sadly doesn’t come as a surprise anymore when a patient declines treatment recommendations and instead opts for ‘alternative’ treatment,” she wrote.

Sometimes, misinformation is not sensational but is still effective via clever wording and presentation, observed Brian G. Southwell, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who has studied patients and misinformation.

“It isn’t the falsehood that is somehow magically attractive, per se, but the way that misinformation is often framed that can make it attractive,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Southwell recommends that clinicians be proactive about medical misinformation.

“Rather than expect patients to raise concerns without prompting, health care providers should invite conversations about potential misinformation with their patients,” he wrote in a recent essay in the American Journal of Public Health.

In short, ask patients what they know about the treatment of their cancer, he suggests.

“Patients don’t typically know that the misinformation they are encountering is misinformation,” said Dr. Southwell. “Approaching patients with compassion and empathy is a good first step.”
 

Study details

For the study, reported by Johnson et al., two National Comprehensive Cancer Network panel members were selected as content experts for each of the four cancers and were tasked with reviewing the primary medical claims in each article. The experts then completed a set of ratings to arrive at the proportion of misinformation and potential for harm in each article.

Of the 200 articles, 41.5% were from nontraditional news (digital only), 37.5% were from traditional news sources (online versions of print and/or broadcast media), 17% were from medical journals, 3% were from a crowdfunding site, and 1% were from personal blogs.

This expert review concluded that nearly one-third of the articles contained misinformation, as noted above. The misinformation was described as misleading (title not supported by text or statistics/data do not support conclusion, 28.8%), strength of the evidence mischaracterized (weak evidence portrayed as strong or vice versa, 27.7%) and unproven therapies (not studied or insufficient evidence, 26.7%).

Notably, the median number of engagements, such as likes on Twitter, for articles with misinformation was greater than that of factual articles (median, 2,300 vs. 1,600; P = .05).

In total, 30.5% of all 200 articles contained harmful information. This was described as harmful inaction (could lead to delay or not seeking medical attention for treatable/curable condition, 31.0%), economic harm (out-of-pocket financial costs associated with treatment/travel, 27.7%), harmful action (potentially toxic effects of the suggested test/treatment, 17.0%), and harmful interactions (known/unknown medical interactions with curative therapies, 16.2%).

The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than that of articles with correct information (median, 2,300 vs. 1,500; P = .007).

A limitation of the study is that it included only the most popular English language cancer articles.

This study was funded in part by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Lycette, and Dr. Southwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Some study authors have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

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

One in three of the most popular news and feature articles on social media about the treatment of the four leading cancers in the United States contains misinformation, and the majority of those have the potential to harm patients, according to a new analysis.

Of the 200 most popular articles (50 each for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer), about a third (32.5%, n = 65) contained misinformation.

Among these articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50/65) contained harmful information.

“The Internet is a leading source of health misinformation,” the study authors wrote. This is “particularly true for social media, where false information spreads faster and more broadly than fact-checked information,” they said, citing other research.

“We need to address these issues head on,” said lead author Skyler Johnson, MD, of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.

“As a medical community, we can’t ignore the problem of cancer misinformation on social media or ask our patients to ignore it. We must empathize with our patients and help them when they encounter this type of information,” he said in a statement. “My goal is to help answer their questions, and provide cancer patients with accurate information that will give them the best chance for the best outcome.”

The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The study period ran from 2018 to 2019, and looked at articles posted on social media platforms Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or Pinterest. Popularity was measured by engagement with readers, such as upvotes, comments, reactions, and shares.

Some of the articles came from long-established news entities such as CBS News, The New York Times, and medical journals, while others came from fleeting crowdfunding web pages and fledging nontraditional news sites.

One example of popular and harmful misinformation highlighted by Dr. Johnson in an interview was titled, “44-Year-Old Mother Claims CBD Oil Cured Her of Breast Cancer within 5 Months.” Posted on truththeory.com in February 2018, the article is tagged as “opinion” by the publisher and in turn links to another news story about the same woman in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.

The ideas and claims in such articles can be very influential, Jennifer L. Lycette, MD, suggested in a recent blog post.

“After 18 years as a cancer doctor, it sadly doesn’t come as a surprise anymore when a patient declines treatment recommendations and instead opts for ‘alternative’ treatment,” she wrote.

Sometimes, misinformation is not sensational but is still effective via clever wording and presentation, observed Brian G. Southwell, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who has studied patients and misinformation.

“It isn’t the falsehood that is somehow magically attractive, per se, but the way that misinformation is often framed that can make it attractive,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Southwell recommends that clinicians be proactive about medical misinformation.

“Rather than expect patients to raise concerns without prompting, health care providers should invite conversations about potential misinformation with their patients,” he wrote in a recent essay in the American Journal of Public Health.

In short, ask patients what they know about the treatment of their cancer, he suggests.

“Patients don’t typically know that the misinformation they are encountering is misinformation,” said Dr. Southwell. “Approaching patients with compassion and empathy is a good first step.”
 

Study details

For the study, reported by Johnson et al., two National Comprehensive Cancer Network panel members were selected as content experts for each of the four cancers and were tasked with reviewing the primary medical claims in each article. The experts then completed a set of ratings to arrive at the proportion of misinformation and potential for harm in each article.

Of the 200 articles, 41.5% were from nontraditional news (digital only), 37.5% were from traditional news sources (online versions of print and/or broadcast media), 17% were from medical journals, 3% were from a crowdfunding site, and 1% were from personal blogs.

This expert review concluded that nearly one-third of the articles contained misinformation, as noted above. The misinformation was described as misleading (title not supported by text or statistics/data do not support conclusion, 28.8%), strength of the evidence mischaracterized (weak evidence portrayed as strong or vice versa, 27.7%) and unproven therapies (not studied or insufficient evidence, 26.7%).

Notably, the median number of engagements, such as likes on Twitter, for articles with misinformation was greater than that of factual articles (median, 2,300 vs. 1,600; P = .05).

In total, 30.5% of all 200 articles contained harmful information. This was described as harmful inaction (could lead to delay or not seeking medical attention for treatable/curable condition, 31.0%), economic harm (out-of-pocket financial costs associated with treatment/travel, 27.7%), harmful action (potentially toxic effects of the suggested test/treatment, 17.0%), and harmful interactions (known/unknown medical interactions with curative therapies, 16.2%).

The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than that of articles with correct information (median, 2,300 vs. 1,500; P = .007).

A limitation of the study is that it included only the most popular English language cancer articles.

This study was funded in part by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Lycette, and Dr. Southwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Some study authors have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

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

One in three of the most popular news and feature articles on social media about the treatment of the four leading cancers in the United States contains misinformation, and the majority of those have the potential to harm patients, according to a new analysis.

Of the 200 most popular articles (50 each for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer), about a third (32.5%, n = 65) contained misinformation.

Among these articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50/65) contained harmful information.

“The Internet is a leading source of health misinformation,” the study authors wrote. This is “particularly true for social media, where false information spreads faster and more broadly than fact-checked information,” they said, citing other research.

“We need to address these issues head on,” said lead author Skyler Johnson, MD, of the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City.

“As a medical community, we can’t ignore the problem of cancer misinformation on social media or ask our patients to ignore it. We must empathize with our patients and help them when they encounter this type of information,” he said in a statement. “My goal is to help answer their questions, and provide cancer patients with accurate information that will give them the best chance for the best outcome.”

The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The study period ran from 2018 to 2019, and looked at articles posted on social media platforms Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, or Pinterest. Popularity was measured by engagement with readers, such as upvotes, comments, reactions, and shares.

Some of the articles came from long-established news entities such as CBS News, The New York Times, and medical journals, while others came from fleeting crowdfunding web pages and fledging nontraditional news sites.

One example of popular and harmful misinformation highlighted by Dr. Johnson in an interview was titled, “44-Year-Old Mother Claims CBD Oil Cured Her of Breast Cancer within 5 Months.” Posted on truththeory.com in February 2018, the article is tagged as “opinion” by the publisher and in turn links to another news story about the same woman in the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper.

The ideas and claims in such articles can be very influential, Jennifer L. Lycette, MD, suggested in a recent blog post.

“After 18 years as a cancer doctor, it sadly doesn’t come as a surprise anymore when a patient declines treatment recommendations and instead opts for ‘alternative’ treatment,” she wrote.

Sometimes, misinformation is not sensational but is still effective via clever wording and presentation, observed Brian G. Southwell, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who has studied patients and misinformation.

“It isn’t the falsehood that is somehow magically attractive, per se, but the way that misinformation is often framed that can make it attractive,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Southwell recommends that clinicians be proactive about medical misinformation.

“Rather than expect patients to raise concerns without prompting, health care providers should invite conversations about potential misinformation with their patients,” he wrote in a recent essay in the American Journal of Public Health.

In short, ask patients what they know about the treatment of their cancer, he suggests.

“Patients don’t typically know that the misinformation they are encountering is misinformation,” said Dr. Southwell. “Approaching patients with compassion and empathy is a good first step.”
 

Study details

For the study, reported by Johnson et al., two National Comprehensive Cancer Network panel members were selected as content experts for each of the four cancers and were tasked with reviewing the primary medical claims in each article. The experts then completed a set of ratings to arrive at the proportion of misinformation and potential for harm in each article.

Of the 200 articles, 41.5% were from nontraditional news (digital only), 37.5% were from traditional news sources (online versions of print and/or broadcast media), 17% were from medical journals, 3% were from a crowdfunding site, and 1% were from personal blogs.

This expert review concluded that nearly one-third of the articles contained misinformation, as noted above. The misinformation was described as misleading (title not supported by text or statistics/data do not support conclusion, 28.8%), strength of the evidence mischaracterized (weak evidence portrayed as strong or vice versa, 27.7%) and unproven therapies (not studied or insufficient evidence, 26.7%).

Notably, the median number of engagements, such as likes on Twitter, for articles with misinformation was greater than that of factual articles (median, 2,300 vs. 1,600; P = .05).

In total, 30.5% of all 200 articles contained harmful information. This was described as harmful inaction (could lead to delay or not seeking medical attention for treatable/curable condition, 31.0%), economic harm (out-of-pocket financial costs associated with treatment/travel, 27.7%), harmful action (potentially toxic effects of the suggested test/treatment, 17.0%), and harmful interactions (known/unknown medical interactions with curative therapies, 16.2%).

The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than that of articles with correct information (median, 2,300 vs. 1,500; P = .007).

A limitation of the study is that it included only the most popular English language cancer articles.

This study was funded in part by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Lycette, and Dr. Southwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Some study authors have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

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

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liposomal doxorubicin (Dox) plus pomalidomide (Pom) was safe and active in heavily pretreated patients with Kaposi sarcoma, according to results from a phase 1/2 trial.

“The results of our phase 1/2 study suggest pomalidomide and liposomal doxorubicin is safe with evidence of activity among patients with Kaposi sarcoma,” said investigator Ramya Ramaswami, MBBS, MPH, of the HIV & AIDS malignancy branch at the National Cancer Institute. The results were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

The researchers evaluated the safety and tolerability of Pom/Dox in two groups of patients with Kaposi sarcoma: group 1 included patients with Kaposi sarcoma alone and group 2 included patients with Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus and concurrent multicentric Castleman disease (KSHV-MCD) and KSHV inflammatory cytokine syndrome (KICS).

“Kaposi sarcoma can be challenging to treat when it co-occurs with KSHV-MCD or KICS, resulting in high mortality rates,” Dr. Ramaswami explained.

Study participants received IV liposomal Dox at 20 mg/m² on day 1 of a 28-day cycle, in addition to oral Pom once daily on days 1-21 at three escalating dose levels (2 mg, 3 mg, or 4 mg, respectively) using a standard 3 + 3 design until plateau of response, progression, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) or patient preference. Some eligibility criteria differed between groups 1 and 2. Participants in group 1 were required to be on antiretroviral therapy for at least 1 month and had a performance status of 2 or less, while those in group 2 had a performance status of 3 or less and could be antiretroviral therapy naive.

All participants received oral aspirin thromboprophylaxis (81 mg daily) and could have received prior Kaposi sarcoma therapy.

With respect to outcomes, Kaposi sarcoma responses were assessed using the modified AIDS Clinical Trial Group criteria and KICS and KSHV-MCD responses were evaluated using an NCI clinical benefit criteria.
 

Results

Overall, 34 cisgender men were enrolled in the study: 21 (62%) in group 1 and 13 (38%) in group 2. All participants had severe (T1) Kaposi sarcoma; 32 (94%) participants were HIV-infected and 22 (65%) had prior chemotherapy for Kaposi sarcoma.

While the HIV viral load was largely controlled in both groups, the CD4 count differed, with median CD4 counts of 286 and 92 cells/mcL in groups 1 and 2, respectively.

With respect to safety, no DLTs were observed in group 1. As a result, 12 participants were treated at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 4 mg of Pom. However, two DLTs (grade 3 rash and pharyngeal edema) were observed in group 2 at the 3 mg dose level.

A median of six cycles were administered for all participants and the most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia; nine patients with grade 3 neutropenia required dose reduction and three patients had febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization. Other Pom-related adverse events were rash, constipation, and fatigue.

Among evaluable participants receiving two or more cycles, 17 (81%) patients in group 1 had a response (95% confidence interval, 58-95%; 16 partial response and 1 complete response) and 5 (50%) patients in group 2 had a response (95% CI, 19-81%; 4 PR and 1 CR).

“Our waterfall plots indicated that the vast majority of patients in group 1 had a positive change in nodular lesions at baseline,” Dr. Ramaswami said. “Participants in group 2 showed some decrease in nodular lesions, but this was usually temporary.”

Among seven participants with KICS responses, four participants (57%) experienced a CR or PR in symptoms and lab abnormalities associated with KICS; three of six participants (50%) with KSHV-MCD responses experienced a PR as per response criteria.

“While activity was noted, the combination was less well tolerated in patients with Kaposi sarcoma and concurrent KSHV-MCD or KICS,” Dr. Ramaswami said.

During a live discussion, Ronald T. Mitsuyasu, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, asked Dr. Ramaswami about the use of liposomal doxorubicin alone in patients with Kaposi sarcoma and concurrent KSHV-MCD or KICS.

While there is currently no data on the use of doxorubicin alone in this population, Dr. Ramaswami noted that she was more confident administering Pom/Dox combination therapy for these patients.

Dr. Ramaswami disclosed financial relationships with the National Cancer Institute, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Merck, CTI Biopharma, and Janssen. The study was funded by a cooperative research and drug development agreement between the National Cancer Institute and Celgene/BMS, EMD Serono, Merck, CTI Biopharma, and Janssen.

Liposomal doxorubicin (Dox) plus pomalidomide (Pom) was safe and active in heavily pretreated patients with Kaposi sarcoma, according to results from a phase 1/2 trial.

“The results of our phase 1/2 study suggest pomalidomide and liposomal doxorubicin is safe with evidence of activity among patients with Kaposi sarcoma,” said investigator Ramya Ramaswami, MBBS, MPH, of the HIV & AIDS malignancy branch at the National Cancer Institute. The results were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

The researchers evaluated the safety and tolerability of Pom/Dox in two groups of patients with Kaposi sarcoma: group 1 included patients with Kaposi sarcoma alone and group 2 included patients with Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus and concurrent multicentric Castleman disease (KSHV-MCD) and KSHV inflammatory cytokine syndrome (KICS).

“Kaposi sarcoma can be challenging to treat when it co-occurs with KSHV-MCD or KICS, resulting in high mortality rates,” Dr. Ramaswami explained.

Study participants received IV liposomal Dox at 20 mg/m² on day 1 of a 28-day cycle, in addition to oral Pom once daily on days 1-21 at three escalating dose levels (2 mg, 3 mg, or 4 mg, respectively) using a standard 3 + 3 design until plateau of response, progression, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) or patient preference. Some eligibility criteria differed between groups 1 and 2. Participants in group 1 were required to be on antiretroviral therapy for at least 1 month and had a performance status of 2 or less, while those in group 2 had a performance status of 3 or less and could be antiretroviral therapy naive.

All participants received oral aspirin thromboprophylaxis (81 mg daily) and could have received prior Kaposi sarcoma therapy.

With respect to outcomes, Kaposi sarcoma responses were assessed using the modified AIDS Clinical Trial Group criteria and KICS and KSHV-MCD responses were evaluated using an NCI clinical benefit criteria.
 

Results

Overall, 34 cisgender men were enrolled in the study: 21 (62%) in group 1 and 13 (38%) in group 2. All participants had severe (T1) Kaposi sarcoma; 32 (94%) participants were HIV-infected and 22 (65%) had prior chemotherapy for Kaposi sarcoma.

While the HIV viral load was largely controlled in both groups, the CD4 count differed, with median CD4 counts of 286 and 92 cells/mcL in groups 1 and 2, respectively.

With respect to safety, no DLTs were observed in group 1. As a result, 12 participants were treated at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 4 mg of Pom. However, two DLTs (grade 3 rash and pharyngeal edema) were observed in group 2 at the 3 mg dose level.

A median of six cycles were administered for all participants and the most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia; nine patients with grade 3 neutropenia required dose reduction and three patients had febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization. Other Pom-related adverse events were rash, constipation, and fatigue.

Among evaluable participants receiving two or more cycles, 17 (81%) patients in group 1 had a response (95% confidence interval, 58-95%; 16 partial response and 1 complete response) and 5 (50%) patients in group 2 had a response (95% CI, 19-81%; 4 PR and 1 CR).

“Our waterfall plots indicated that the vast majority of patients in group 1 had a positive change in nodular lesions at baseline,” Dr. Ramaswami said. “Participants in group 2 showed some decrease in nodular lesions, but this was usually temporary.”

Among seven participants with KICS responses, four participants (57%) experienced a CR or PR in symptoms and lab abnormalities associated with KICS; three of six participants (50%) with KSHV-MCD responses experienced a PR as per response criteria.

“While activity was noted, the combination was less well tolerated in patients with Kaposi sarcoma and concurrent KSHV-MCD or KICS,” Dr. Ramaswami said.

During a live discussion, Ronald T. Mitsuyasu, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, asked Dr. Ramaswami about the use of liposomal doxorubicin alone in patients with Kaposi sarcoma and concurrent KSHV-MCD or KICS.

While there is currently no data on the use of doxorubicin alone in this population, Dr. Ramaswami noted that she was more confident administering Pom/Dox combination therapy for these patients.

Dr. Ramaswami disclosed financial relationships with the National Cancer Institute, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Merck, CTI Biopharma, and Janssen. The study was funded by a cooperative research and drug development agreement between the National Cancer Institute and Celgene/BMS, EMD Serono, Merck, CTI Biopharma, and Janssen.

Liposomal doxorubicin (Dox) plus pomalidomide (Pom) was safe and active in heavily pretreated patients with Kaposi sarcoma, according to results from a phase 1/2 trial.

“The results of our phase 1/2 study suggest pomalidomide and liposomal doxorubicin is safe with evidence of activity among patients with Kaposi sarcoma,” said investigator Ramya Ramaswami, MBBS, MPH, of the HIV & AIDS malignancy branch at the National Cancer Institute. The results were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

The researchers evaluated the safety and tolerability of Pom/Dox in two groups of patients with Kaposi sarcoma: group 1 included patients with Kaposi sarcoma alone and group 2 included patients with Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus and concurrent multicentric Castleman disease (KSHV-MCD) and KSHV inflammatory cytokine syndrome (KICS).

“Kaposi sarcoma can be challenging to treat when it co-occurs with KSHV-MCD or KICS, resulting in high mortality rates,” Dr. Ramaswami explained.

Study participants received IV liposomal Dox at 20 mg/m² on day 1 of a 28-day cycle, in addition to oral Pom once daily on days 1-21 at three escalating dose levels (2 mg, 3 mg, or 4 mg, respectively) using a standard 3 + 3 design until plateau of response, progression, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) or patient preference. Some eligibility criteria differed between groups 1 and 2. Participants in group 1 were required to be on antiretroviral therapy for at least 1 month and had a performance status of 2 or less, while those in group 2 had a performance status of 3 or less and could be antiretroviral therapy naive.

All participants received oral aspirin thromboprophylaxis (81 mg daily) and could have received prior Kaposi sarcoma therapy.

With respect to outcomes, Kaposi sarcoma responses were assessed using the modified AIDS Clinical Trial Group criteria and KICS and KSHV-MCD responses were evaluated using an NCI clinical benefit criteria.
 

Results

Overall, 34 cisgender men were enrolled in the study: 21 (62%) in group 1 and 13 (38%) in group 2. All participants had severe (T1) Kaposi sarcoma; 32 (94%) participants were HIV-infected and 22 (65%) had prior chemotherapy for Kaposi sarcoma.

While the HIV viral load was largely controlled in both groups, the CD4 count differed, with median CD4 counts of 286 and 92 cells/mcL in groups 1 and 2, respectively.

With respect to safety, no DLTs were observed in group 1. As a result, 12 participants were treated at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 4 mg of Pom. However, two DLTs (grade 3 rash and pharyngeal edema) were observed in group 2 at the 3 mg dose level.

A median of six cycles were administered for all participants and the most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia; nine patients with grade 3 neutropenia required dose reduction and three patients had febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization. Other Pom-related adverse events were rash, constipation, and fatigue.

Among evaluable participants receiving two or more cycles, 17 (81%) patients in group 1 had a response (95% confidence interval, 58-95%; 16 partial response and 1 complete response) and 5 (50%) patients in group 2 had a response (95% CI, 19-81%; 4 PR and 1 CR).

“Our waterfall plots indicated that the vast majority of patients in group 1 had a positive change in nodular lesions at baseline,” Dr. Ramaswami said. “Participants in group 2 showed some decrease in nodular lesions, but this was usually temporary.”

Among seven participants with KICS responses, four participants (57%) experienced a CR or PR in symptoms and lab abnormalities associated with KICS; three of six participants (50%) with KSHV-MCD responses experienced a PR as per response criteria.

“While activity was noted, the combination was less well tolerated in patients with Kaposi sarcoma and concurrent KSHV-MCD or KICS,” Dr. Ramaswami said.

During a live discussion, Ronald T. Mitsuyasu, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, asked Dr. Ramaswami about the use of liposomal doxorubicin alone in patients with Kaposi sarcoma and concurrent KSHV-MCD or KICS.

While there is currently no data on the use of doxorubicin alone in this population, Dr. Ramaswami noted that she was more confident administering Pom/Dox combination therapy for these patients.

Dr. Ramaswami disclosed financial relationships with the National Cancer Institute, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Merck, CTI Biopharma, and Janssen. The study was funded by a cooperative research and drug development agreement between the National Cancer Institute and Celgene/BMS, EMD Serono, Merck, CTI Biopharma, and Janssen.