User login
FDA Calls AstraZeneca’s NSCLC Trial Design Into Question
The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone.
Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has.
However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points.
Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned.
When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery.
The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.
One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment.
Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said.
To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.
The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.
However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so.
The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies.
FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone.
Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has.
However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points.
Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned.
When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery.
The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.
One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment.
Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said.
To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.
The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.
However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so.
The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies.
FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial in question, AEGEAN, investigated perioperative durvalumab for resectable NSCLC tumors across 802 patients. Patients without EGFR or ALK mutations were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab before surgery alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy and after surgery for a year as monotherapy or to receive chemotherapy and surgery alone.
Patients receiving durvalumab demonstrated better event-free survival at 1 year (73.4% vs 64.5% without durvalumab) and a better pathologic complete response rate (17.2% vs 4.3% without). Currently, AstraZeneca is seeking to add the indication for durvalumab to those the agent already has.
However, at the July 25 ODAC meeting, the committee explained that the AEGEAN trial design makes it impossible to tell whether patients benefited from durvalumab before surgery, after it, or at both points.
Mounting evidence, including from AstraZeneca’s own studies, suggests that the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as durvalumab, comes before surgery. That means prescribing durvalumab after surgery could be exposing patients to serious side effects and financial toxicity, with potentially no clinical benefit, “magnifying the risk of potential overtreatment,” the committee cautioned.
When AEGEAN was being designed in 2018, FDA requested that AstraZeneca address the uncertainty surrounding when to use durvalumab by including separate neoadjuvant and adjuvant arms, or at least an arm where patients were treated with neoadjuvant durvalumab alone to compare with treatment both before and after surgery.
The company didn’t follow through and, during the July 25 meeting, the committee wanted answers. “Why did you not comply with this?” asked ODAC committee acting chair Daniel Spratt, MD, a radiation oncologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
AstraZeneca personnel explained that doing so would have required many more subjects, made the trial more expensive, and added about 2 years to AEGEAN.
One speaker noted that the company, which makes more than $4 billion a year on durvalumab, would have taken about 2 days to recoup that added cost. Others wondered whether the motive was to sell durvalumab for as long as possible across a patient’s course of treatment.
Perhaps the biggest reason the company ignored the request is that “it wasn’t our understanding at that time that this was a barrier to approval,” an AstraZeneca regulatory affairs specialist said.
To this end, the agency asked its advisory panel to vote on whether it should require — instead of simply request, as it did with AstraZeneca — companies to prove that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC.
The 11-member panel voted unanimously that it should make this a requirement, and several members said it should do so in other cancers as well.
However, when the agency asked whether durvalumab’s resectable NSCLC approval should be delayed until AstraZeneca conducts a trial to answer the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question, the panel members didn’t think so.
The consensus was that because AEGEAN showed a decent benefit, patients and physicians should have it as an option, and approval shouldn’t be delayed. The panel said that the bigger question about the benefit of maintenance therapy should be left to future studies.
FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinical Controversy: Standard Dose or Baby TAM for Breast Cancer Prevention?
Should 5 mg of tamoxifen — known as “baby TAM” — or the usual 20 mg dose be standard of care for breast cancer prevention in high-risk women?
Research to date clearly shows that tamoxifen can reduce the risk for breast cancer in high-risk individuals by 30%-50%. Recent evidence also indicates that this chemoprevention approach can reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer by as much as 57%.
In 2019, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued updated recommendations that clinicians offer risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women at an increased risk for breast cancer and a low risk for adverse medication effects.
However, this prophylactic strategy remains underused.
A major roadblock: The drugs’ side effects, which include venous thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer as well as symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes and sexual issues, have made uptake and adherence a challenge.
Offering women a lower dose of tamoxifen could allay fears about toxicities and improve uptake as well as reduce side effects and boost long-term adherence among those receiving baby TAM.
However,
The Debate
Years ago, Andrea De Censi, MD, a breast cancer researcher at the Galliera Hospital in Genova, Italy, and his colleagues reasoned that, because tamoxifen is a competitive estrogen receptor inhibitor, it may indeed have a minimal effective dose below 20 mg/d.
The fruits of that line of thought were presented to the world in the TAM-01 trial, first published in 2019, which pitted tamoxifen 5 mg/d for 3 years against placebo in 500 women with high-risk lesions, including lobular and ductal carcinoma in situ.
Dr. De Censi and colleagues found that baby TAM reduced the risk for invasive breast cancer by 52% and the risk for contralateral breast cancer by 75%.
Treatment adherence was slightly higher in the baby TAM group at 65% vs 61% in the placebo group.
A recent 10-year follow-up showed ongoing benefits associated with baby TAM vs placebo — a 42% reduction in breast cancer and a 64% drop in contralateral lesions.
The baby TAM group vs placebo experienced a slight increase in hot flashes but no significant increase in other common side effects.
Regarding serious adverse events, the baby TAM arm had one case of stage 1 endometrial cancer (0.4% of patients) and 20 cases of endometrial polyps (5%) vs 13 cases of endometrial polyps in the placebo arm. But there were no significant differences in thrombosis, cataracts, bone fractures, and other serious events.
Dr. De Censi said he’s surprised the baby TAM vs tamoxifen topic is still being debated. “Baby TAM, in my opinion, is a new standard of care for endocrine prevention of breast cancer in high-risk [women],” and baby TAM over 3 years is enough, said Dr. De Censi during a debate on the topic at the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer Congress in Berlin.
Gareth Evans, MD, a cancer genetics and prevention specialist at the University of Manchester, Manchester, England, however, isn’t convinced.
During the debate, Dr. Evans explained that his main concern was that the baby TAM trial was limited to women with high-risk lesions, not other common reasons for tamoxifen prophylaxis, such as a positive family history or BRCA mutations.
“In Manchester, we have put over a thousand women on tamoxifen who have a family history or other risk factors, not high-risk lesions,” and there simply isn’t definitive evidence for baby TAM in these women, Dr. Evans said.
The vast weight of evidence for tamoxifen prophylaxis, he added, is in trials involving tens of thousands of women, followed in some cases for 20 years, who received the 20 mg dose for 5 years.
As a result, women in Manchester are started on 20 mg and dropped down to 5 mg only for side effects. That way, Evans explained, we are not taking away the benefit among women who can tolerate 20 mg.
Meanwhile, there’s no evidence that baby TAM improves medication adherence, he noted. Trials have reported similar adherence rates to baby TAM and standard dose tamoxifen as well as no definitive evidence that the risk for cancer and thrombosis is less with baby TAM, he said.
In fact, Dr. Evans noted, “many women take tamoxifen 20 mg for 5 years with no side effects.”
Overall, “I don’t think we’ve got the evidence yet to drop” dosages, particularly in women without high-risk lesions, Dr. Evans said. A real concern, he added, is poor metabolizers for whom 5 mg won’t be enough to have a preventive effect.
Dr. De Censi noted, however, that there will likely never be a definitive answer to the question of baby TAM vs standard dosing because industry has no financial incentive to do a head-to-head trial; tamoxifen went off patent over 30 years ago.
Still, a poll of the audience favored Evans’ approach — 80% said they would start high-risk women on 20 mg for breast cancer prophylaxis and reduce for side effects as needed.
Dr. De Censi didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Evans is a consultant/advisor for AstraZeneca, SpringWorks, Recursion, Everything Genetic, and Syantra.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should 5 mg of tamoxifen — known as “baby TAM” — or the usual 20 mg dose be standard of care for breast cancer prevention in high-risk women?
Research to date clearly shows that tamoxifen can reduce the risk for breast cancer in high-risk individuals by 30%-50%. Recent evidence also indicates that this chemoprevention approach can reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer by as much as 57%.
In 2019, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued updated recommendations that clinicians offer risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women at an increased risk for breast cancer and a low risk for adverse medication effects.
However, this prophylactic strategy remains underused.
A major roadblock: The drugs’ side effects, which include venous thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer as well as symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes and sexual issues, have made uptake and adherence a challenge.
Offering women a lower dose of tamoxifen could allay fears about toxicities and improve uptake as well as reduce side effects and boost long-term adherence among those receiving baby TAM.
However,
The Debate
Years ago, Andrea De Censi, MD, a breast cancer researcher at the Galliera Hospital in Genova, Italy, and his colleagues reasoned that, because tamoxifen is a competitive estrogen receptor inhibitor, it may indeed have a minimal effective dose below 20 mg/d.
The fruits of that line of thought were presented to the world in the TAM-01 trial, first published in 2019, which pitted tamoxifen 5 mg/d for 3 years against placebo in 500 women with high-risk lesions, including lobular and ductal carcinoma in situ.
Dr. De Censi and colleagues found that baby TAM reduced the risk for invasive breast cancer by 52% and the risk for contralateral breast cancer by 75%.
Treatment adherence was slightly higher in the baby TAM group at 65% vs 61% in the placebo group.
A recent 10-year follow-up showed ongoing benefits associated with baby TAM vs placebo — a 42% reduction in breast cancer and a 64% drop in contralateral lesions.
The baby TAM group vs placebo experienced a slight increase in hot flashes but no significant increase in other common side effects.
Regarding serious adverse events, the baby TAM arm had one case of stage 1 endometrial cancer (0.4% of patients) and 20 cases of endometrial polyps (5%) vs 13 cases of endometrial polyps in the placebo arm. But there were no significant differences in thrombosis, cataracts, bone fractures, and other serious events.
Dr. De Censi said he’s surprised the baby TAM vs tamoxifen topic is still being debated. “Baby TAM, in my opinion, is a new standard of care for endocrine prevention of breast cancer in high-risk [women],” and baby TAM over 3 years is enough, said Dr. De Censi during a debate on the topic at the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer Congress in Berlin.
Gareth Evans, MD, a cancer genetics and prevention specialist at the University of Manchester, Manchester, England, however, isn’t convinced.
During the debate, Dr. Evans explained that his main concern was that the baby TAM trial was limited to women with high-risk lesions, not other common reasons for tamoxifen prophylaxis, such as a positive family history or BRCA mutations.
“In Manchester, we have put over a thousand women on tamoxifen who have a family history or other risk factors, not high-risk lesions,” and there simply isn’t definitive evidence for baby TAM in these women, Dr. Evans said.
The vast weight of evidence for tamoxifen prophylaxis, he added, is in trials involving tens of thousands of women, followed in some cases for 20 years, who received the 20 mg dose for 5 years.
As a result, women in Manchester are started on 20 mg and dropped down to 5 mg only for side effects. That way, Evans explained, we are not taking away the benefit among women who can tolerate 20 mg.
Meanwhile, there’s no evidence that baby TAM improves medication adherence, he noted. Trials have reported similar adherence rates to baby TAM and standard dose tamoxifen as well as no definitive evidence that the risk for cancer and thrombosis is less with baby TAM, he said.
In fact, Dr. Evans noted, “many women take tamoxifen 20 mg for 5 years with no side effects.”
Overall, “I don’t think we’ve got the evidence yet to drop” dosages, particularly in women without high-risk lesions, Dr. Evans said. A real concern, he added, is poor metabolizers for whom 5 mg won’t be enough to have a preventive effect.
Dr. De Censi noted, however, that there will likely never be a definitive answer to the question of baby TAM vs standard dosing because industry has no financial incentive to do a head-to-head trial; tamoxifen went off patent over 30 years ago.
Still, a poll of the audience favored Evans’ approach — 80% said they would start high-risk women on 20 mg for breast cancer prophylaxis and reduce for side effects as needed.
Dr. De Censi didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Evans is a consultant/advisor for AstraZeneca, SpringWorks, Recursion, Everything Genetic, and Syantra.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should 5 mg of tamoxifen — known as “baby TAM” — or the usual 20 mg dose be standard of care for breast cancer prevention in high-risk women?
Research to date clearly shows that tamoxifen can reduce the risk for breast cancer in high-risk individuals by 30%-50%. Recent evidence also indicates that this chemoprevention approach can reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer by as much as 57%.
In 2019, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued updated recommendations that clinicians offer risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women at an increased risk for breast cancer and a low risk for adverse medication effects.
However, this prophylactic strategy remains underused.
A major roadblock: The drugs’ side effects, which include venous thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer as well as symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes and sexual issues, have made uptake and adherence a challenge.
Offering women a lower dose of tamoxifen could allay fears about toxicities and improve uptake as well as reduce side effects and boost long-term adherence among those receiving baby TAM.
However,
The Debate
Years ago, Andrea De Censi, MD, a breast cancer researcher at the Galliera Hospital in Genova, Italy, and his colleagues reasoned that, because tamoxifen is a competitive estrogen receptor inhibitor, it may indeed have a minimal effective dose below 20 mg/d.
The fruits of that line of thought were presented to the world in the TAM-01 trial, first published in 2019, which pitted tamoxifen 5 mg/d for 3 years against placebo in 500 women with high-risk lesions, including lobular and ductal carcinoma in situ.
Dr. De Censi and colleagues found that baby TAM reduced the risk for invasive breast cancer by 52% and the risk for contralateral breast cancer by 75%.
Treatment adherence was slightly higher in the baby TAM group at 65% vs 61% in the placebo group.
A recent 10-year follow-up showed ongoing benefits associated with baby TAM vs placebo — a 42% reduction in breast cancer and a 64% drop in contralateral lesions.
The baby TAM group vs placebo experienced a slight increase in hot flashes but no significant increase in other common side effects.
Regarding serious adverse events, the baby TAM arm had one case of stage 1 endometrial cancer (0.4% of patients) and 20 cases of endometrial polyps (5%) vs 13 cases of endometrial polyps in the placebo arm. But there were no significant differences in thrombosis, cataracts, bone fractures, and other serious events.
Dr. De Censi said he’s surprised the baby TAM vs tamoxifen topic is still being debated. “Baby TAM, in my opinion, is a new standard of care for endocrine prevention of breast cancer in high-risk [women],” and baby TAM over 3 years is enough, said Dr. De Censi during a debate on the topic at the 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer Congress in Berlin.
Gareth Evans, MD, a cancer genetics and prevention specialist at the University of Manchester, Manchester, England, however, isn’t convinced.
During the debate, Dr. Evans explained that his main concern was that the baby TAM trial was limited to women with high-risk lesions, not other common reasons for tamoxifen prophylaxis, such as a positive family history or BRCA mutations.
“In Manchester, we have put over a thousand women on tamoxifen who have a family history or other risk factors, not high-risk lesions,” and there simply isn’t definitive evidence for baby TAM in these women, Dr. Evans said.
The vast weight of evidence for tamoxifen prophylaxis, he added, is in trials involving tens of thousands of women, followed in some cases for 20 years, who received the 20 mg dose for 5 years.
As a result, women in Manchester are started on 20 mg and dropped down to 5 mg only for side effects. That way, Evans explained, we are not taking away the benefit among women who can tolerate 20 mg.
Meanwhile, there’s no evidence that baby TAM improves medication adherence, he noted. Trials have reported similar adherence rates to baby TAM and standard dose tamoxifen as well as no definitive evidence that the risk for cancer and thrombosis is less with baby TAM, he said.
In fact, Dr. Evans noted, “many women take tamoxifen 20 mg for 5 years with no side effects.”
Overall, “I don’t think we’ve got the evidence yet to drop” dosages, particularly in women without high-risk lesions, Dr. Evans said. A real concern, he added, is poor metabolizers for whom 5 mg won’t be enough to have a preventive effect.
Dr. De Censi noted, however, that there will likely never be a definitive answer to the question of baby TAM vs standard dosing because industry has no financial incentive to do a head-to-head trial; tamoxifen went off patent over 30 years ago.
Still, a poll of the audience favored Evans’ approach — 80% said they would start high-risk women on 20 mg for breast cancer prophylaxis and reduce for side effects as needed.
Dr. De Censi didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Evans is a consultant/advisor for AstraZeneca, SpringWorks, Recursion, Everything Genetic, and Syantra.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Epcoritamab for R/R Follicular Lymphoma
This marks the second indication for the bispecific CD20-directed CD3 T-cell engager. The agent was first approved in 2023 for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in adults.
The current approval was based on the single-arm EPCORE NHL-1 trial in 127 patients with follicular lymphoma who had received at least two lines of systemic therapy.
After a two step-up dosing regimen, the overall response rate was 82%, with 60% of patients achieving a complete response. At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the median duration of response was not reached. The 12-month duration of response was 68.4%.
Efficacy was similar in the 86 patients who received a three step-up dosing schedule.
Labeling carries a black box warning of cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Adverse events in 20% or more of patients included injection site reactions, cytokine release syndrome, COVID-19 infection, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, pyrexia, cough, and headache.
Decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white blood cell count, and hemoglobin were the most common grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities.
Three step-up dosing is the recommended regimen, with epcoritamab administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dosing is increased by steps to the full 48 mg in cycle 1.
The price is $16,282.52 for 48 mg/0.8 mL, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This marks the second indication for the bispecific CD20-directed CD3 T-cell engager. The agent was first approved in 2023 for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in adults.
The current approval was based on the single-arm EPCORE NHL-1 trial in 127 patients with follicular lymphoma who had received at least two lines of systemic therapy.
After a two step-up dosing regimen, the overall response rate was 82%, with 60% of patients achieving a complete response. At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the median duration of response was not reached. The 12-month duration of response was 68.4%.
Efficacy was similar in the 86 patients who received a three step-up dosing schedule.
Labeling carries a black box warning of cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Adverse events in 20% or more of patients included injection site reactions, cytokine release syndrome, COVID-19 infection, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, pyrexia, cough, and headache.
Decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white blood cell count, and hemoglobin were the most common grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities.
Three step-up dosing is the recommended regimen, with epcoritamab administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dosing is increased by steps to the full 48 mg in cycle 1.
The price is $16,282.52 for 48 mg/0.8 mL, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This marks the second indication for the bispecific CD20-directed CD3 T-cell engager. The agent was first approved in 2023 for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in adults.
The current approval was based on the single-arm EPCORE NHL-1 trial in 127 patients with follicular lymphoma who had received at least two lines of systemic therapy.
After a two step-up dosing regimen, the overall response rate was 82%, with 60% of patients achieving a complete response. At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the median duration of response was not reached. The 12-month duration of response was 68.4%.
Efficacy was similar in the 86 patients who received a three step-up dosing schedule.
Labeling carries a black box warning of cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Adverse events in 20% or more of patients included injection site reactions, cytokine release syndrome, COVID-19 infection, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, pyrexia, cough, and headache.
Decreased lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, white blood cell count, and hemoglobin were the most common grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities.
Three step-up dosing is the recommended regimen, with epcoritamab administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dosing is increased by steps to the full 48 mg in cycle 1.
The price is $16,282.52 for 48 mg/0.8 mL, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Thermal Ablation Tops Surgery for Small CRC Liver Mets
At nearly 30 months of follow-up, European investigators found no difference in overall and progression-free survival with thermal ablation instead of surgery, as well as better local control, fewer adverse events, shorter hospital stays, and no treatment-related deaths.
The benefit of thermal ablation was so substantial that the trial was stopped early with about 300 of the planned 600 patients randomized.
Numerous retrospective studies have compared the two approaches, and some have reported better survival with surgery. As a result, although a large number of lesions are amenable to either approach, “the majority of colorectal liver mets [are] still being” resected, said lead investigator and presenter Martijn R. Meijerink, MD, PhD, an interventional radiologist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dr. Meijerink said many of the previous reviews were unreliable due to selection bias because patients only had ablation if their lesions couldn’t be removed surgically. In contrast, all patients in the COLLISION trial were eligible for resection.
“Thermal ablation in experienced centers seems to be at least as good as surgical resection for small liver tumors.” Patients would benefit if it replaced surgery as the standard of care with no compromise in survival, Dr. Meijerink added.
The 296 COLLISION patients were treated at 14 centers in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy. They had no more than 12 liver lesions 3 cm or smaller with a median of two lesions. Participants were split equally between the ablation and surgical arms of the trial.
Almost half of the surgeries were laparoscopic, and nearly 60% of the ablations were percutaneous. Recent technological advances were used in the ablation cases, including software to confirm the complete eradication of targeted metastases.
At 28.8 months, there was no difference in overall survival between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.051; P = .813) and no difference in local (HR, 0.817; P = .53) and distant (HR, 1.03; P = .836) progression-free survival. Local control — meaning treated lesions didn’t grow back — favored thermal ablation (HR, 0.092; P = .024).
The results held across number subgroup analyses, including by stage, molecular profile, and number of lesions.
“Interestingly, the majority of ablation site recurrences were somehow retreated, and most of them successfully, [while] the majority of resection plane recurrences were not retreated,” Dr. Meijerink said.
Patients with ablation vs surgery spent a median of 1 day vs 4 days in the hospital. Almost 20% of patients in the surgery group had grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events vs 6% of those in the ablation group, which isn’t surprising, Dr. Meijerink said, because “the needle is less invasive than a knife.”
Three patients (2.1%) died of surgical complications, but there were no treatment-related deaths with ablation.
Major Kenneth Lee, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was the study discussant, emphasized the importance of gathering prospective data to compare the two approaches fairly.
“Ablation appears equivalent to resection for small, ideally located colorectal liver mets,” he said. Still, longer follow-up is needed to ensure that cure rates with ablation match those with surgery.
The study was funded by Medtronic-Covidien, a maker of thermal ablation equipment. Among other industry ties, Dr. Meijerink reported receiving honoraria and research funding from Medtronic and advising the company. Dr. Lee didn’t have any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
At nearly 30 months of follow-up, European investigators found no difference in overall and progression-free survival with thermal ablation instead of surgery, as well as better local control, fewer adverse events, shorter hospital stays, and no treatment-related deaths.
The benefit of thermal ablation was so substantial that the trial was stopped early with about 300 of the planned 600 patients randomized.
Numerous retrospective studies have compared the two approaches, and some have reported better survival with surgery. As a result, although a large number of lesions are amenable to either approach, “the majority of colorectal liver mets [are] still being” resected, said lead investigator and presenter Martijn R. Meijerink, MD, PhD, an interventional radiologist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dr. Meijerink said many of the previous reviews were unreliable due to selection bias because patients only had ablation if their lesions couldn’t be removed surgically. In contrast, all patients in the COLLISION trial were eligible for resection.
“Thermal ablation in experienced centers seems to be at least as good as surgical resection for small liver tumors.” Patients would benefit if it replaced surgery as the standard of care with no compromise in survival, Dr. Meijerink added.
The 296 COLLISION patients were treated at 14 centers in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy. They had no more than 12 liver lesions 3 cm or smaller with a median of two lesions. Participants were split equally between the ablation and surgical arms of the trial.
Almost half of the surgeries were laparoscopic, and nearly 60% of the ablations were percutaneous. Recent technological advances were used in the ablation cases, including software to confirm the complete eradication of targeted metastases.
At 28.8 months, there was no difference in overall survival between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.051; P = .813) and no difference in local (HR, 0.817; P = .53) and distant (HR, 1.03; P = .836) progression-free survival. Local control — meaning treated lesions didn’t grow back — favored thermal ablation (HR, 0.092; P = .024).
The results held across number subgroup analyses, including by stage, molecular profile, and number of lesions.
“Interestingly, the majority of ablation site recurrences were somehow retreated, and most of them successfully, [while] the majority of resection plane recurrences were not retreated,” Dr. Meijerink said.
Patients with ablation vs surgery spent a median of 1 day vs 4 days in the hospital. Almost 20% of patients in the surgery group had grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events vs 6% of those in the ablation group, which isn’t surprising, Dr. Meijerink said, because “the needle is less invasive than a knife.”
Three patients (2.1%) died of surgical complications, but there were no treatment-related deaths with ablation.
Major Kenneth Lee, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was the study discussant, emphasized the importance of gathering prospective data to compare the two approaches fairly.
“Ablation appears equivalent to resection for small, ideally located colorectal liver mets,” he said. Still, longer follow-up is needed to ensure that cure rates with ablation match those with surgery.
The study was funded by Medtronic-Covidien, a maker of thermal ablation equipment. Among other industry ties, Dr. Meijerink reported receiving honoraria and research funding from Medtronic and advising the company. Dr. Lee didn’t have any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
At nearly 30 months of follow-up, European investigators found no difference in overall and progression-free survival with thermal ablation instead of surgery, as well as better local control, fewer adverse events, shorter hospital stays, and no treatment-related deaths.
The benefit of thermal ablation was so substantial that the trial was stopped early with about 300 of the planned 600 patients randomized.
Numerous retrospective studies have compared the two approaches, and some have reported better survival with surgery. As a result, although a large number of lesions are amenable to either approach, “the majority of colorectal liver mets [are] still being” resected, said lead investigator and presenter Martijn R. Meijerink, MD, PhD, an interventional radiologist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dr. Meijerink said many of the previous reviews were unreliable due to selection bias because patients only had ablation if their lesions couldn’t be removed surgically. In contrast, all patients in the COLLISION trial were eligible for resection.
“Thermal ablation in experienced centers seems to be at least as good as surgical resection for small liver tumors.” Patients would benefit if it replaced surgery as the standard of care with no compromise in survival, Dr. Meijerink added.
The 296 COLLISION patients were treated at 14 centers in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy. They had no more than 12 liver lesions 3 cm or smaller with a median of two lesions. Participants were split equally between the ablation and surgical arms of the trial.
Almost half of the surgeries were laparoscopic, and nearly 60% of the ablations were percutaneous. Recent technological advances were used in the ablation cases, including software to confirm the complete eradication of targeted metastases.
At 28.8 months, there was no difference in overall survival between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.051; P = .813) and no difference in local (HR, 0.817; P = .53) and distant (HR, 1.03; P = .836) progression-free survival. Local control — meaning treated lesions didn’t grow back — favored thermal ablation (HR, 0.092; P = .024).
The results held across number subgroup analyses, including by stage, molecular profile, and number of lesions.
“Interestingly, the majority of ablation site recurrences were somehow retreated, and most of them successfully, [while] the majority of resection plane recurrences were not retreated,” Dr. Meijerink said.
Patients with ablation vs surgery spent a median of 1 day vs 4 days in the hospital. Almost 20% of patients in the surgery group had grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events vs 6% of those in the ablation group, which isn’t surprising, Dr. Meijerink said, because “the needle is less invasive than a knife.”
Three patients (2.1%) died of surgical complications, but there were no treatment-related deaths with ablation.
Major Kenneth Lee, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was the study discussant, emphasized the importance of gathering prospective data to compare the two approaches fairly.
“Ablation appears equivalent to resection for small, ideally located colorectal liver mets,” he said. Still, longer follow-up is needed to ensure that cure rates with ablation match those with surgery.
The study was funded by Medtronic-Covidien, a maker of thermal ablation equipment. Among other industry ties, Dr. Meijerink reported receiving honoraria and research funding from Medtronic and advising the company. Dr. Lee didn’t have any disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
Platinum Add-On Improves Survival in Early TNBC
presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
The outcomes of the South Korean study, dubbed PEARLY, provide strong evidence for incorporating carboplatin into both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in patients with early-stage TNBC, said lead investigator and presenter Joohyuk Sohn, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
In early-stage TNBC, carboplatin is already being incorporated into the neoadjuvant setting on the basis of trial results from KEYNOTE-522 that demonstrated improved pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival with the platinum alongside pembrolizumab.
However, the overall survival benefit of carboplatin in this setting remains unclear, as does the benefit of platinum add-on in the adjuvant setting, Dr. Sohn explained.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues randomized 868 patients evenly to either standard treatment — doxorubicin, anthracycline, and cyclophosphamide followed by a taxane — or an experimental arm that added carboplatin to the taxane phase of treatment.
About 30% of women were treated in the adjuvant setting, the rest in the neoadjuvant setting. The two arms of the study were generally well balanced — about 80% of patients had stage II disease, half were node negative, and 11% had deleterious germline mutations.
The primary endpoint, event-free survival, was broadly defined. Events included disease progression, local or distant recurrence, occurrence of a second primary cancer, inoperable status after neoadjuvant therapy, or death from any cause.
Adding carboplatin increased 5-year event-free survival rates from 75.1% to 82.3% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; P = .012) with the benefit holding across various subgroup analyses and particularly strong for adjuvant carboplatin (HR, 0.26).
Five-year overall survival was also better in the carboplatin arm — 90.7% vs 87% in the control arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.02) — but that benefit did not reach statistical significance (P = .057)
Invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.73) and distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.77) favored carboplatin, but the results also weren’t statistically significant.
Overall, 46% of patients had a pathologic complete response with carboplatin vs nearly 40% in the control arm. The pathologic complete response benefit from carboplatin add-on was consistent with past reports.
As expected, adding carboplatin to treatment increased hematologic toxicity and other adverse events, with three-quarters of patients experiencing grade 3 or worse adverse events vs 56.7% of control participants. There was one death in the carboplatin arm from pneumonia and two in the control arm — one from septic shock and the other from suicide.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues, however, did not observe a quality of life difference between the two groups.
“The PEARLY trial provides compelling evidence for including carboplatin in the treatment of early-stage TNBC,” Dr. Sohn concluded, adding that the results underscore the benefit in the neoadjuvant setting and suggest “potential applicability in the adjuvant setting post surgery.”
Study discussant Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, believes that the PEARLY provides a strong signal for adding carboplatin in the adjuvant setting.
“That’s something I would do in my clinical practice,” said Dr. Cortes, head of the International Breast Cancer Center in Barcelona, Spain. “After ASCO this year, I would offer taxanes plus carboplatin following anthracyclines.”
An audience member, William Sikov, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said he hopes “we’ve reached the end of a road that started many years ago in terms of incorporating carboplatin as part of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer, where we finally [reach] consensus that this is necessary in our triple-negative patients.”
The work was funded by the government of South Korea and others. Dr. Sohn reported stock in Daiichi Sankyo and research funding from Daiichi and other companies. Dr. Cortes disclosed numerous industry ties, including honoraria, research funding, and/or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
The outcomes of the South Korean study, dubbed PEARLY, provide strong evidence for incorporating carboplatin into both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in patients with early-stage TNBC, said lead investigator and presenter Joohyuk Sohn, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
In early-stage TNBC, carboplatin is already being incorporated into the neoadjuvant setting on the basis of trial results from KEYNOTE-522 that demonstrated improved pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival with the platinum alongside pembrolizumab.
However, the overall survival benefit of carboplatin in this setting remains unclear, as does the benefit of platinum add-on in the adjuvant setting, Dr. Sohn explained.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues randomized 868 patients evenly to either standard treatment — doxorubicin, anthracycline, and cyclophosphamide followed by a taxane — or an experimental arm that added carboplatin to the taxane phase of treatment.
About 30% of women were treated in the adjuvant setting, the rest in the neoadjuvant setting. The two arms of the study were generally well balanced — about 80% of patients had stage II disease, half were node negative, and 11% had deleterious germline mutations.
The primary endpoint, event-free survival, was broadly defined. Events included disease progression, local or distant recurrence, occurrence of a second primary cancer, inoperable status after neoadjuvant therapy, or death from any cause.
Adding carboplatin increased 5-year event-free survival rates from 75.1% to 82.3% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; P = .012) with the benefit holding across various subgroup analyses and particularly strong for adjuvant carboplatin (HR, 0.26).
Five-year overall survival was also better in the carboplatin arm — 90.7% vs 87% in the control arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.02) — but that benefit did not reach statistical significance (P = .057)
Invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.73) and distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.77) favored carboplatin, but the results also weren’t statistically significant.
Overall, 46% of patients had a pathologic complete response with carboplatin vs nearly 40% in the control arm. The pathologic complete response benefit from carboplatin add-on was consistent with past reports.
As expected, adding carboplatin to treatment increased hematologic toxicity and other adverse events, with three-quarters of patients experiencing grade 3 or worse adverse events vs 56.7% of control participants. There was one death in the carboplatin arm from pneumonia and two in the control arm — one from septic shock and the other from suicide.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues, however, did not observe a quality of life difference between the two groups.
“The PEARLY trial provides compelling evidence for including carboplatin in the treatment of early-stage TNBC,” Dr. Sohn concluded, adding that the results underscore the benefit in the neoadjuvant setting and suggest “potential applicability in the adjuvant setting post surgery.”
Study discussant Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, believes that the PEARLY provides a strong signal for adding carboplatin in the adjuvant setting.
“That’s something I would do in my clinical practice,” said Dr. Cortes, head of the International Breast Cancer Center in Barcelona, Spain. “After ASCO this year, I would offer taxanes plus carboplatin following anthracyclines.”
An audience member, William Sikov, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said he hopes “we’ve reached the end of a road that started many years ago in terms of incorporating carboplatin as part of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer, where we finally [reach] consensus that this is necessary in our triple-negative patients.”
The work was funded by the government of South Korea and others. Dr. Sohn reported stock in Daiichi Sankyo and research funding from Daiichi and other companies. Dr. Cortes disclosed numerous industry ties, including honoraria, research funding, and/or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
The outcomes of the South Korean study, dubbed PEARLY, provide strong evidence for incorporating carboplatin into both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in patients with early-stage TNBC, said lead investigator and presenter Joohyuk Sohn, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
In early-stage TNBC, carboplatin is already being incorporated into the neoadjuvant setting on the basis of trial results from KEYNOTE-522 that demonstrated improved pathologic complete response rates and event-free survival with the platinum alongside pembrolizumab.
However, the overall survival benefit of carboplatin in this setting remains unclear, as does the benefit of platinum add-on in the adjuvant setting, Dr. Sohn explained.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues randomized 868 patients evenly to either standard treatment — doxorubicin, anthracycline, and cyclophosphamide followed by a taxane — or an experimental arm that added carboplatin to the taxane phase of treatment.
About 30% of women were treated in the adjuvant setting, the rest in the neoadjuvant setting. The two arms of the study were generally well balanced — about 80% of patients had stage II disease, half were node negative, and 11% had deleterious germline mutations.
The primary endpoint, event-free survival, was broadly defined. Events included disease progression, local or distant recurrence, occurrence of a second primary cancer, inoperable status after neoadjuvant therapy, or death from any cause.
Adding carboplatin increased 5-year event-free survival rates from 75.1% to 82.3% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; P = .012) with the benefit holding across various subgroup analyses and particularly strong for adjuvant carboplatin (HR, 0.26).
Five-year overall survival was also better in the carboplatin arm — 90.7% vs 87% in the control arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.02) — but that benefit did not reach statistical significance (P = .057)
Invasive disease-free survival (HR, 0.73) and distant recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.77) favored carboplatin, but the results also weren’t statistically significant.
Overall, 46% of patients had a pathologic complete response with carboplatin vs nearly 40% in the control arm. The pathologic complete response benefit from carboplatin add-on was consistent with past reports.
As expected, adding carboplatin to treatment increased hematologic toxicity and other adverse events, with three-quarters of patients experiencing grade 3 or worse adverse events vs 56.7% of control participants. There was one death in the carboplatin arm from pneumonia and two in the control arm — one from septic shock and the other from suicide.
Dr. Sohn and colleagues, however, did not observe a quality of life difference between the two groups.
“The PEARLY trial provides compelling evidence for including carboplatin in the treatment of early-stage TNBC,” Dr. Sohn concluded, adding that the results underscore the benefit in the neoadjuvant setting and suggest “potential applicability in the adjuvant setting post surgery.”
Study discussant Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, believes that the PEARLY provides a strong signal for adding carboplatin in the adjuvant setting.
“That’s something I would do in my clinical practice,” said Dr. Cortes, head of the International Breast Cancer Center in Barcelona, Spain. “After ASCO this year, I would offer taxanes plus carboplatin following anthracyclines.”
An audience member, William Sikov, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said he hopes “we’ve reached the end of a road that started many years ago in terms of incorporating carboplatin as part of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer, where we finally [reach] consensus that this is necessary in our triple-negative patients.”
The work was funded by the government of South Korea and others. Dr. Sohn reported stock in Daiichi Sankyo and research funding from Daiichi and other companies. Dr. Cortes disclosed numerous industry ties, including honoraria, research funding, and/or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
FDA Expands Durvalumab Label to Endometrial Cancer
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Expands Repotrectinib Label to All NTRK Gene Fusion+ Solid Tumors
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Practice Changing’ Results for Osimertinib in Unresectable Stage III EGFR+ NSCLC
CHICAGO — Osimertinib (Tagrisso) may soon have approvals across all stages of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
The third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) already carries indications for metastatic disease and for adjuvant use in earlier-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
Results from the phase 3 LAURA trial, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting and funded by AstraZeneca, will likely lead to an approval for the remaining indication: Unresectable stage III disease.
The news was greeted with a standing ovation at the meeting where it was presented by lead investigator and medical oncologist Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Emory University, Atlanta.
David R. Spigel, MD, a discussant on the trial, called the results “outstanding.”
“To have an 84% reduction in the risk of cancer progression or death is meaningful,” said Dr. Spigel, a medical oncologist at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, who reported ties to AstraZeneca. “This will be practice changing as soon as the label gets expanded.”
In the trial, investigators randomized 216 patients with unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had not progressed after definitive platinum-based chemoradiation to receive either 80 mg osimertinib (n = 143) or placebo (n = 73). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the study arms, with a mostly even split between stage III subtypes.
Patients were staged by biopsy or CT at baseline plus MRI to confirm the absence of brain lesions. Subsequent imaging was repeated at regular intervals.
Twelve-month progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review, was 74% with osimertinib vs 22% with placebo. At 24 months, the rates were 65% and 13%, respectively.
The progression-free survival benefit held across numerous subgroups but was statistically significant only among Asian individuals, who made up over 80% of both study arms.
Although the data are immature, osimertinib is also showing a trend toward improved overall survival, despite 81% of placebo patients crossing over to osimertinib after progression, Dr. Ramalingam reported. Mature overall survival results are expected within 2 years.
Based on these results, “osimertinib will become the new standard of care” after definitive chemoradiation in this patient population, Dr. Ramalingam said.
EGFR mutation testing “is now critical for stage III patients to ensure optimal” treatment, he added. Nearly a third of patients with NSCLC present with stage III disease, and the majority are unresectable. Of those, about a third are EGFR mutated.
Placebo was a fair comparator in the trial, Dr. Ramalingam stressed. While the current standard of care for unresectable stage III disease is 1 year of durvalumab after chemoradiation, durvalumab has proven ineffective in EGFR-mutated disease and often isn›t used in the setting.
If the control arm had been on durvalumab, patients would have needed to wait until it was safe to give them an EGFR TKI after progression, which didn’t seem to be in their best interest, he told this news organization.
A total of 68% of patients receiving placebo developed new lesions during the study, including brain metastases in 29%. New lesions developed in 22% of those on osimertinib, with new brain lesions in 8%.
The incidence of radiation pneumonitis, the most common adverse event, was 48% with osimertinib and 38% with placebo. Skin rash, diarrhea, and other known TKI side effects were also more common with osimertinib.
Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 13% of osimertinib patients vs 3% of placebo patients. Overall, 8% of osimertinib patients developed interstitial lung disease; most cases were low grade, but one person died.
About half of patients interrupted osimertinib dosing due to side effects, with a minority discontinuing.
Another study discussant, medical oncologist Lecia Sequist, MD, called the results “practice-changing” and said the findings support immediate consolidation with osimertinib instead of waiting for patients to progress.
Dr. Sequist, who reported ties to AstraZeneca, noted that patients were treated with osimertinib until progression, not for a limited duration as in past EGFR TKI trials, raising the possibility of indefinite, life-long treatment.
Treating until progression acknowledges the fact that for most patients, unresectable stage III NSCLC can’t be cured. However, she said a minority of patients might not need indefinite treatment — an important cohort to identify, given the drug costs more than $18,000 a month.
The study was funded by osimertinib maker AstraZeneca. Investigators included employees. Dr. Ramalingam, Dr. Spigel, and Dr. Sequist are advisers for and disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel also disclosed travel funding.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Osimertinib (Tagrisso) may soon have approvals across all stages of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
The third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) already carries indications for metastatic disease and for adjuvant use in earlier-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
Results from the phase 3 LAURA trial, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting and funded by AstraZeneca, will likely lead to an approval for the remaining indication: Unresectable stage III disease.
The news was greeted with a standing ovation at the meeting where it was presented by lead investigator and medical oncologist Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Emory University, Atlanta.
David R. Spigel, MD, a discussant on the trial, called the results “outstanding.”
“To have an 84% reduction in the risk of cancer progression or death is meaningful,” said Dr. Spigel, a medical oncologist at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, who reported ties to AstraZeneca. “This will be practice changing as soon as the label gets expanded.”
In the trial, investigators randomized 216 patients with unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had not progressed after definitive platinum-based chemoradiation to receive either 80 mg osimertinib (n = 143) or placebo (n = 73). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the study arms, with a mostly even split between stage III subtypes.
Patients were staged by biopsy or CT at baseline plus MRI to confirm the absence of brain lesions. Subsequent imaging was repeated at regular intervals.
Twelve-month progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review, was 74% with osimertinib vs 22% with placebo. At 24 months, the rates were 65% and 13%, respectively.
The progression-free survival benefit held across numerous subgroups but was statistically significant only among Asian individuals, who made up over 80% of both study arms.
Although the data are immature, osimertinib is also showing a trend toward improved overall survival, despite 81% of placebo patients crossing over to osimertinib after progression, Dr. Ramalingam reported. Mature overall survival results are expected within 2 years.
Based on these results, “osimertinib will become the new standard of care” after definitive chemoradiation in this patient population, Dr. Ramalingam said.
EGFR mutation testing “is now critical for stage III patients to ensure optimal” treatment, he added. Nearly a third of patients with NSCLC present with stage III disease, and the majority are unresectable. Of those, about a third are EGFR mutated.
Placebo was a fair comparator in the trial, Dr. Ramalingam stressed. While the current standard of care for unresectable stage III disease is 1 year of durvalumab after chemoradiation, durvalumab has proven ineffective in EGFR-mutated disease and often isn›t used in the setting.
If the control arm had been on durvalumab, patients would have needed to wait until it was safe to give them an EGFR TKI after progression, which didn’t seem to be in their best interest, he told this news organization.
A total of 68% of patients receiving placebo developed new lesions during the study, including brain metastases in 29%. New lesions developed in 22% of those on osimertinib, with new brain lesions in 8%.
The incidence of radiation pneumonitis, the most common adverse event, was 48% with osimertinib and 38% with placebo. Skin rash, diarrhea, and other known TKI side effects were also more common with osimertinib.
Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 13% of osimertinib patients vs 3% of placebo patients. Overall, 8% of osimertinib patients developed interstitial lung disease; most cases were low grade, but one person died.
About half of patients interrupted osimertinib dosing due to side effects, with a minority discontinuing.
Another study discussant, medical oncologist Lecia Sequist, MD, called the results “practice-changing” and said the findings support immediate consolidation with osimertinib instead of waiting for patients to progress.
Dr. Sequist, who reported ties to AstraZeneca, noted that patients were treated with osimertinib until progression, not for a limited duration as in past EGFR TKI trials, raising the possibility of indefinite, life-long treatment.
Treating until progression acknowledges the fact that for most patients, unresectable stage III NSCLC can’t be cured. However, she said a minority of patients might not need indefinite treatment — an important cohort to identify, given the drug costs more than $18,000 a month.
The study was funded by osimertinib maker AstraZeneca. Investigators included employees. Dr. Ramalingam, Dr. Spigel, and Dr. Sequist are advisers for and disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel also disclosed travel funding.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Osimertinib (Tagrisso) may soon have approvals across all stages of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
The third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) already carries indications for metastatic disease and for adjuvant use in earlier-stage EGFR-mutated NSCLC.
Results from the phase 3 LAURA trial, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting and funded by AstraZeneca, will likely lead to an approval for the remaining indication: Unresectable stage III disease.
The news was greeted with a standing ovation at the meeting where it was presented by lead investigator and medical oncologist Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Emory University, Atlanta.
David R. Spigel, MD, a discussant on the trial, called the results “outstanding.”
“To have an 84% reduction in the risk of cancer progression or death is meaningful,” said Dr. Spigel, a medical oncologist at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, who reported ties to AstraZeneca. “This will be practice changing as soon as the label gets expanded.”
In the trial, investigators randomized 216 patients with unresectable stage III EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had not progressed after definitive platinum-based chemoradiation to receive either 80 mg osimertinib (n = 143) or placebo (n = 73). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the study arms, with a mostly even split between stage III subtypes.
Patients were staged by biopsy or CT at baseline plus MRI to confirm the absence of brain lesions. Subsequent imaging was repeated at regular intervals.
Twelve-month progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review, was 74% with osimertinib vs 22% with placebo. At 24 months, the rates were 65% and 13%, respectively.
The progression-free survival benefit held across numerous subgroups but was statistically significant only among Asian individuals, who made up over 80% of both study arms.
Although the data are immature, osimertinib is also showing a trend toward improved overall survival, despite 81% of placebo patients crossing over to osimertinib after progression, Dr. Ramalingam reported. Mature overall survival results are expected within 2 years.
Based on these results, “osimertinib will become the new standard of care” after definitive chemoradiation in this patient population, Dr. Ramalingam said.
EGFR mutation testing “is now critical for stage III patients to ensure optimal” treatment, he added. Nearly a third of patients with NSCLC present with stage III disease, and the majority are unresectable. Of those, about a third are EGFR mutated.
Placebo was a fair comparator in the trial, Dr. Ramalingam stressed. While the current standard of care for unresectable stage III disease is 1 year of durvalumab after chemoradiation, durvalumab has proven ineffective in EGFR-mutated disease and often isn›t used in the setting.
If the control arm had been on durvalumab, patients would have needed to wait until it was safe to give them an EGFR TKI after progression, which didn’t seem to be in their best interest, he told this news organization.
A total of 68% of patients receiving placebo developed new lesions during the study, including brain metastases in 29%. New lesions developed in 22% of those on osimertinib, with new brain lesions in 8%.
The incidence of radiation pneumonitis, the most common adverse event, was 48% with osimertinib and 38% with placebo. Skin rash, diarrhea, and other known TKI side effects were also more common with osimertinib.
Treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 13% of osimertinib patients vs 3% of placebo patients. Overall, 8% of osimertinib patients developed interstitial lung disease; most cases were low grade, but one person died.
About half of patients interrupted osimertinib dosing due to side effects, with a minority discontinuing.
Another study discussant, medical oncologist Lecia Sequist, MD, called the results “practice-changing” and said the findings support immediate consolidation with osimertinib instead of waiting for patients to progress.
Dr. Sequist, who reported ties to AstraZeneca, noted that patients were treated with osimertinib until progression, not for a limited duration as in past EGFR TKI trials, raising the possibility of indefinite, life-long treatment.
Treating until progression acknowledges the fact that for most patients, unresectable stage III NSCLC can’t be cured. However, she said a minority of patients might not need indefinite treatment — an important cohort to identify, given the drug costs more than $18,000 a month.
The study was funded by osimertinib maker AstraZeneca. Investigators included employees. Dr. Ramalingam, Dr. Spigel, and Dr. Sequist are advisers for and disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Spigel also disclosed travel funding.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
The ASCO Annual Meeting Starts This Week
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Liposomal Irinotecan for Pancreatic Cancer: Is It Worth It?
In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irinotecan liposome (Onivyde) as part of a new regimen for first-line metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma called NALIRIFOX.
The main difference between NALIRIFOX and a standard go-to regimen for the indication, modified FOLFIRINOX, is that liposomal irinotecan — irinotecan encased in a lipid nanoparticle — is used instead of free irinotecan.
Trial data suggested a better overall response rate, a slight progression-free survival advantage, and potentially fewer adverse events with the liposomal formulation.
The substitution, however, raises the cost of treatment substantially. According to one estimate, a single cycle of FOLFIRINOX costs about $500 at a body surface area of 2 m2, while the equivalent single cycle of NALIRIFOX costs $7800 — over 15-fold more expensive.
While some oncologists have called the NALIRIFOX regimen a potential new standard first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, others have expressed serious doubts about whether the potential benefits are worth the extra cost.
“I can’t really see a single scenario where I would recommend NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX” Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and pancreatic cancer researcher at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization. “Most of us in the academic setting have the same take on this.”
No Head-to-Head Comparison
Instead, the 770-patient NAPOLI 3 trial compared NALIRIFOX — which also includes oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin — with a two-drug regimen, nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. In the trial, overall survival and other outcomes were moderately better with NALIRIFOX.
Oncologists have said that the true value of the trial is that it conclusively demonstrates that a four-drug regimen is superior to a two-drug regimen for patients who can tolerate the more intensive therapy.
Eileen M. O’Reilly, MD, the senior investigator on NAPOLI 3, made this point when she presented the phase 3 results at the 2023 ASCO annual meeting.
The trial “answers the question of four drugs versus two” for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer but “does not address the question of NALIRIFOX versus FOLFIRINOX,” said Dr. O’Reilly, a pancreatic and hepatobiliary oncologist and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Comparing them directly in the study “probably wouldn’t have been in the interest of the sponsor,” said Dr. O’Reilly.
With no head-to-head comparison, oncologists have been comparing NAPOLI 3 results with those from PRODIGE 4, the 2011 trial that won FOLFIRINOX its place as a first-line regimen.
When comparing the trials, median overall survival was exactly the same for the two regimens — 11.1 months. FOLFIRINOX was associated with a slightly higher 1-year survival rate — 48.4% with FOLFIRINOX vs 45.6% with NALIRIFOX.
However, Dr. O’Reilly and her colleagues also highlighted comparisons between the two trials that favored NAPOLI 3.
NAPOLI 3 had no age limit, while PRODIGE subjects were no older than 75 years. Median progression-free survival was 1 month longer among patients receiving NALIRIFOX — 7.4 months vs 6.4 months in PRODIGE — and overall response rates were higher as well — 41.8% in NAPOLI 3 vs 31.6%. Patients receiving NALIRIFOX also had lower rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (23.8% vs 45.7%, respectively) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.5% vs 9.0%, respectively).
The authors explained that the lower rate of neuropathy could be because NALIRIFOX uses a lower dose of oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), at 60 mg/m2 instead of 85 mg/m2.
Is It Worth It?
During a presentation of the phase 3 findings last year, study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
The study discussant, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, agreed that the results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as “the new standard for fit patients.”
However, other oncologists remain skeptical about the benefits of the new regimen over FOLFIRINOX for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and University of Utah gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Nevala-Plagemann, MD, compared the evidence for both regimens.
The experts pointed out that overall response rates were assessed by investigators in NAPOLI 3 and not by an independent review committee, as in PRODIGE 4, and might have been overestimated.
Although the lack of an age limit was touted as a benefit of NAPOLI 3, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann doubt whether enough patients over 75 years old participated to draw any meaningful conclusions about using NALIRIFOX in older, frailer patients. If anything, patients in PRODIGE 4 might have been less fit because, among other things, the trial allowed patients with serum albumins < 3 g/dL.
On the adverse event front, the authors highlighted the higher incidences of grade 3 or worse diarrhea with NALIRIFOX (20% vs 12.7%) and questioned if there truly is less neutropenia with NALIRIFOX because high-risk patients in NAPOLI 3 were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent it. The pair also questioned whether the differences in neuropathy rates between the two trials were big enough to be clinically meaningful.
Insights from a recent meta-analysis may further clarify some of the lingering questions about the efficacy of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX.
In the analysis, the team found no meaningful difference in overall and progression-free survival between the two regimens. Differences in rates of peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were not statistically significant, but NALIRIFOX did carry a statistically significant advantage in lower rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and vomiting.
The team concluded that “NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX may provide equal efficacy as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer, but with different toxicity profiles,” and called for careful patient selection when choosing between the two regimens as well as consideration of financial toxicity.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna had a different take. With the current data, NALIRIFOX does not seem to “add anything substantially different to what we already” have with FOLFIRINOX, he told this news organization. Given that, “we can’t really justify NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX without more of a head-to-head comparison.”
The higher cost of NALIRIFOX, in particular, remains a major drawback.
“We think it would be an economic disservice to our healthcare systems if we used NALIRIFOX instead of FOLFIRINOX for these patients on the basis of [NAPOLI 3] data,” Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, and Christopher Booth, MD, gastrointestinal oncologists at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, said in a recent essay.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann reiterated this concern.
Overall, “NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar but rather exposes patients and healthcare systems to financial toxicities,” Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann wrote in their review.
NAPOLI 3 was funded by Ipsen and PRODIGE 4 was funded by the government of France. No funding source was reported for the meta-analysis. NAPOLI 3 investigators included Ipsen employees. Dr. O’Reilly disclosed grants or contracts from Ipsen and many other companies. Dr. Garrido-Laguna reported institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies, but not Ipsen. Dr. Nevala-Plagemann is an advisor for Seagen and reported institutional research funding from Theriva. Dr. Gyawali is a consultant for Vivio Health; Dr. Booth had no disclosures. Two meta-analysis authors reported grants or personal fees from Ipsen as well as ties to other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irinotecan liposome (Onivyde) as part of a new regimen for first-line metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma called NALIRIFOX.
The main difference between NALIRIFOX and a standard go-to regimen for the indication, modified FOLFIRINOX, is that liposomal irinotecan — irinotecan encased in a lipid nanoparticle — is used instead of free irinotecan.
Trial data suggested a better overall response rate, a slight progression-free survival advantage, and potentially fewer adverse events with the liposomal formulation.
The substitution, however, raises the cost of treatment substantially. According to one estimate, a single cycle of FOLFIRINOX costs about $500 at a body surface area of 2 m2, while the equivalent single cycle of NALIRIFOX costs $7800 — over 15-fold more expensive.
While some oncologists have called the NALIRIFOX regimen a potential new standard first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, others have expressed serious doubts about whether the potential benefits are worth the extra cost.
“I can’t really see a single scenario where I would recommend NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX” Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and pancreatic cancer researcher at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization. “Most of us in the academic setting have the same take on this.”
No Head-to-Head Comparison
Instead, the 770-patient NAPOLI 3 trial compared NALIRIFOX — which also includes oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin — with a two-drug regimen, nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. In the trial, overall survival and other outcomes were moderately better with NALIRIFOX.
Oncologists have said that the true value of the trial is that it conclusively demonstrates that a four-drug regimen is superior to a two-drug regimen for patients who can tolerate the more intensive therapy.
Eileen M. O’Reilly, MD, the senior investigator on NAPOLI 3, made this point when she presented the phase 3 results at the 2023 ASCO annual meeting.
The trial “answers the question of four drugs versus two” for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer but “does not address the question of NALIRIFOX versus FOLFIRINOX,” said Dr. O’Reilly, a pancreatic and hepatobiliary oncologist and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Comparing them directly in the study “probably wouldn’t have been in the interest of the sponsor,” said Dr. O’Reilly.
With no head-to-head comparison, oncologists have been comparing NAPOLI 3 results with those from PRODIGE 4, the 2011 trial that won FOLFIRINOX its place as a first-line regimen.
When comparing the trials, median overall survival was exactly the same for the two regimens — 11.1 months. FOLFIRINOX was associated with a slightly higher 1-year survival rate — 48.4% with FOLFIRINOX vs 45.6% with NALIRIFOX.
However, Dr. O’Reilly and her colleagues also highlighted comparisons between the two trials that favored NAPOLI 3.
NAPOLI 3 had no age limit, while PRODIGE subjects were no older than 75 years. Median progression-free survival was 1 month longer among patients receiving NALIRIFOX — 7.4 months vs 6.4 months in PRODIGE — and overall response rates were higher as well — 41.8% in NAPOLI 3 vs 31.6%. Patients receiving NALIRIFOX also had lower rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (23.8% vs 45.7%, respectively) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.5% vs 9.0%, respectively).
The authors explained that the lower rate of neuropathy could be because NALIRIFOX uses a lower dose of oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), at 60 mg/m2 instead of 85 mg/m2.
Is It Worth It?
During a presentation of the phase 3 findings last year, study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
The study discussant, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, agreed that the results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as “the new standard for fit patients.”
However, other oncologists remain skeptical about the benefits of the new regimen over FOLFIRINOX for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and University of Utah gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Nevala-Plagemann, MD, compared the evidence for both regimens.
The experts pointed out that overall response rates were assessed by investigators in NAPOLI 3 and not by an independent review committee, as in PRODIGE 4, and might have been overestimated.
Although the lack of an age limit was touted as a benefit of NAPOLI 3, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann doubt whether enough patients over 75 years old participated to draw any meaningful conclusions about using NALIRIFOX in older, frailer patients. If anything, patients in PRODIGE 4 might have been less fit because, among other things, the trial allowed patients with serum albumins < 3 g/dL.
On the adverse event front, the authors highlighted the higher incidences of grade 3 or worse diarrhea with NALIRIFOX (20% vs 12.7%) and questioned if there truly is less neutropenia with NALIRIFOX because high-risk patients in NAPOLI 3 were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent it. The pair also questioned whether the differences in neuropathy rates between the two trials were big enough to be clinically meaningful.
Insights from a recent meta-analysis may further clarify some of the lingering questions about the efficacy of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX.
In the analysis, the team found no meaningful difference in overall and progression-free survival between the two regimens. Differences in rates of peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were not statistically significant, but NALIRIFOX did carry a statistically significant advantage in lower rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and vomiting.
The team concluded that “NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX may provide equal efficacy as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer, but with different toxicity profiles,” and called for careful patient selection when choosing between the two regimens as well as consideration of financial toxicity.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna had a different take. With the current data, NALIRIFOX does not seem to “add anything substantially different to what we already” have with FOLFIRINOX, he told this news organization. Given that, “we can’t really justify NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX without more of a head-to-head comparison.”
The higher cost of NALIRIFOX, in particular, remains a major drawback.
“We think it would be an economic disservice to our healthcare systems if we used NALIRIFOX instead of FOLFIRINOX for these patients on the basis of [NAPOLI 3] data,” Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, and Christopher Booth, MD, gastrointestinal oncologists at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, said in a recent essay.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann reiterated this concern.
Overall, “NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar but rather exposes patients and healthcare systems to financial toxicities,” Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann wrote in their review.
NAPOLI 3 was funded by Ipsen and PRODIGE 4 was funded by the government of France. No funding source was reported for the meta-analysis. NAPOLI 3 investigators included Ipsen employees. Dr. O’Reilly disclosed grants or contracts from Ipsen and many other companies. Dr. Garrido-Laguna reported institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies, but not Ipsen. Dr. Nevala-Plagemann is an advisor for Seagen and reported institutional research funding from Theriva. Dr. Gyawali is a consultant for Vivio Health; Dr. Booth had no disclosures. Two meta-analysis authors reported grants or personal fees from Ipsen as well as ties to other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In February, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irinotecan liposome (Onivyde) as part of a new regimen for first-line metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma called NALIRIFOX.
The main difference between NALIRIFOX and a standard go-to regimen for the indication, modified FOLFIRINOX, is that liposomal irinotecan — irinotecan encased in a lipid nanoparticle — is used instead of free irinotecan.
Trial data suggested a better overall response rate, a slight progression-free survival advantage, and potentially fewer adverse events with the liposomal formulation.
The substitution, however, raises the cost of treatment substantially. According to one estimate, a single cycle of FOLFIRINOX costs about $500 at a body surface area of 2 m2, while the equivalent single cycle of NALIRIFOX costs $7800 — over 15-fold more expensive.
While some oncologists have called the NALIRIFOX regimen a potential new standard first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, others have expressed serious doubts about whether the potential benefits are worth the extra cost.
“I can’t really see a single scenario where I would recommend NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX” Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and pancreatic cancer researcher at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, told this news organization. “Most of us in the academic setting have the same take on this.”
No Head-to-Head Comparison
Instead, the 770-patient NAPOLI 3 trial compared NALIRIFOX — which also includes oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin — with a two-drug regimen, nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. In the trial, overall survival and other outcomes were moderately better with NALIRIFOX.
Oncologists have said that the true value of the trial is that it conclusively demonstrates that a four-drug regimen is superior to a two-drug regimen for patients who can tolerate the more intensive therapy.
Eileen M. O’Reilly, MD, the senior investigator on NAPOLI 3, made this point when she presented the phase 3 results at the 2023 ASCO annual meeting.
The trial “answers the question of four drugs versus two” for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer but “does not address the question of NALIRIFOX versus FOLFIRINOX,” said Dr. O’Reilly, a pancreatic and hepatobiliary oncologist and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Comparing them directly in the study “probably wouldn’t have been in the interest of the sponsor,” said Dr. O’Reilly.
With no head-to-head comparison, oncologists have been comparing NAPOLI 3 results with those from PRODIGE 4, the 2011 trial that won FOLFIRINOX its place as a first-line regimen.
When comparing the trials, median overall survival was exactly the same for the two regimens — 11.1 months. FOLFIRINOX was associated with a slightly higher 1-year survival rate — 48.4% with FOLFIRINOX vs 45.6% with NALIRIFOX.
However, Dr. O’Reilly and her colleagues also highlighted comparisons between the two trials that favored NAPOLI 3.
NAPOLI 3 had no age limit, while PRODIGE subjects were no older than 75 years. Median progression-free survival was 1 month longer among patients receiving NALIRIFOX — 7.4 months vs 6.4 months in PRODIGE — and overall response rates were higher as well — 41.8% in NAPOLI 3 vs 31.6%. Patients receiving NALIRIFOX also had lower rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (23.8% vs 45.7%, respectively) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.5% vs 9.0%, respectively).
The authors explained that the lower rate of neuropathy could be because NALIRIFOX uses a lower dose of oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), at 60 mg/m2 instead of 85 mg/m2.
Is It Worth It?
During a presentation of the phase 3 findings last year, study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
The study discussant, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, agreed that the results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as “the new standard for fit patients.”
However, other oncologists remain skeptical about the benefits of the new regimen over FOLFIRINOX for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and University of Utah gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Nevala-Plagemann, MD, compared the evidence for both regimens.
The experts pointed out that overall response rates were assessed by investigators in NAPOLI 3 and not by an independent review committee, as in PRODIGE 4, and might have been overestimated.
Although the lack of an age limit was touted as a benefit of NAPOLI 3, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann doubt whether enough patients over 75 years old participated to draw any meaningful conclusions about using NALIRIFOX in older, frailer patients. If anything, patients in PRODIGE 4 might have been less fit because, among other things, the trial allowed patients with serum albumins < 3 g/dL.
On the adverse event front, the authors highlighted the higher incidences of grade 3 or worse diarrhea with NALIRIFOX (20% vs 12.7%) and questioned if there truly is less neutropenia with NALIRIFOX because high-risk patients in NAPOLI 3 were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent it. The pair also questioned whether the differences in neuropathy rates between the two trials were big enough to be clinically meaningful.
Insights from a recent meta-analysis may further clarify some of the lingering questions about the efficacy of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX.
In the analysis, the team found no meaningful difference in overall and progression-free survival between the two regimens. Differences in rates of peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were not statistically significant, but NALIRIFOX did carry a statistically significant advantage in lower rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and vomiting.
The team concluded that “NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX may provide equal efficacy as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer, but with different toxicity profiles,” and called for careful patient selection when choosing between the two regimens as well as consideration of financial toxicity.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna had a different take. With the current data, NALIRIFOX does not seem to “add anything substantially different to what we already” have with FOLFIRINOX, he told this news organization. Given that, “we can’t really justify NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX without more of a head-to-head comparison.”
The higher cost of NALIRIFOX, in particular, remains a major drawback.
“We think it would be an economic disservice to our healthcare systems if we used NALIRIFOX instead of FOLFIRINOX for these patients on the basis of [NAPOLI 3] data,” Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, and Christopher Booth, MD, gastrointestinal oncologists at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, said in a recent essay.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann reiterated this concern.
Overall, “NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar but rather exposes patients and healthcare systems to financial toxicities,” Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann wrote in their review.
NAPOLI 3 was funded by Ipsen and PRODIGE 4 was funded by the government of France. No funding source was reported for the meta-analysis. NAPOLI 3 investigators included Ipsen employees. Dr. O’Reilly disclosed grants or contracts from Ipsen and many other companies. Dr. Garrido-Laguna reported institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies, but not Ipsen. Dr. Nevala-Plagemann is an advisor for Seagen and reported institutional research funding from Theriva. Dr. Gyawali is a consultant for Vivio Health; Dr. Booth had no disclosures. Two meta-analysis authors reported grants or personal fees from Ipsen as well as ties to other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.