User login
Mitchel is a reporter for MDedge based in the Philadelphia area. He started with the company in 1992, when it was International Medical News Group (IMNG), and has since covered a range of medical specialties. Mitchel trained as a virologist at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, and then worked briefly as a researcher at Boston Children's Hospital before pivoting to journalism as a AAAS Mass Media Fellow in 1980. His first reporting job was with Science Digest magazine, and from the mid-1980s to early-1990s he was a reporter with Medical World News. @mitchelzoler
Nivolumab effective in PD-L1–deficient lung cancers
VIENNA – The oncologic immunotherapy drug nivolumab works by binding PD-1 receptors, but PD-L1 ligand levels in lung cancers do not predict how responsive patients are to the drug.
“While enhanced clinical activity with nivolumab correlates with increasing tumor PD-L1 expression, nivolumab-treated patients with little or no PD-L1 expression have a comparable probability of response, more durable responses, comparable overall survival, and fewer treatment-related adverse events, compared with patients treated with docetaxel,” Solange Peters, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
But a more detailed assessment of the survival data by Dr. Peters showed an unexpected pattern of an early hazard among the nivolumab patients. During the first 3 months on randomized treatment, 15 more patients died in the nivolumab arm than in the docetaxel arm. This quickly reversed during months 4-6 on treatment, when nine more patients died on docetaxel than on nivolumab, Dr. Peters reported. By 12 months after the onset of treatment, overall survival was 51% in the nivolumab group and 39% among those randomized to docetaxel.
A post hoc analysis showed a trend to a higher risk for death during the first 3 months of nivolumab treatment among patients with poorer prognostic features, more aggressive disease, and low or no tumor expression of PD-L1, Dr. Peters said.
Although patients with tumors with high levels of PD-L1 expression had the best response rate to nivolumab, patients with no PD-L1 expression had a response to nivolumab that was roughly equivalent to the response to docetaxel among patients randomized to chemotherapy. “Deep and durable responses were seen to nivolumab irrespective of the level of PD-L1 expression,” she said. Among patients with tumors that had a less than 1% rate of PD-L1 expression, the objective response rate was 9% with nivolumab and 15% with docetaxel. Among patients with tumors that had a PD-L1 expression rate of 1% or greater, the objective responses rate was 31% with nivolumab and 12% with docetaxel.
In a landmark analysis that excluded patients who died during the first 3 months on treatment, the pattern of responses to nivolumab and its advantage over docetaxel were similar among patients with no or low PD-L1 expression and among all patients enrolled in the study. In this landmark analysis, the hazard ratio for death after 3 months was reduced with nivolumab treatment by 34% among patients with no or low PD-L1 expression and by 31% in the entire study population, Dr. Peters reported.
CheckMate057 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that markets nivolumab (Opdivo). Dr. Peters has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb and to several other drug companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
The new analyses reported by Dr. Peters addressed the question of whether patients who receive nivolumab in place of docetaxel are disadvantaged during the first 3 months of treatment. The data showed that in CheckMate057 an excess of 15 patients died in the group randomized to receive nivolumab during the first 3 months on treatment, compared with the control patients treated with docetaxel. This is concerning. Ideally, we’d like to see the patients treated with immunotherapy respond right away, but it takes time for immunotherapy to have an effect.
In almost all immunotherapy studies, a high proportion of patients, often about a third, progress during the first 2-3 months on treatment. It will be important to identify these patients and try new treatment approaches such as combined immunotherapies or a combination of chemotherapy with immunotherapy.
The early excess mortality of 15 patients with nivolumab seen in CheckMate057 must be viewed in context. It represents just 5% of patients randomized to receive nivolumab, and hence this finding should not influence clinical practice. Nivolumab treatment produced a very strong treatment benefit overall during follow-up at 12 and 18 months, compared with docetaxel in this study.
Immunotherapy agents like nivolumab have another advantage, compared with standard chemotherapy drugs, beyond better efficacy in selected patients. Immunotherapy drugs are also generally safer than chemotherapy agents, producing fewer adverse effects. For that reason alone, immunotherapy is preferred as long as its efficacy is comparable to that of chemotherapy. Even in patients with a tumor that does not express PD-L1, and even though some non–small cell lung cancer patients will die early when put on immunotherapy, overall opinion in the clinical community favors a drug like nivolumab over chemotherapy because of its better safety.
Paul Mitchell, MD, is a medical oncologist at the Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre in Heidelberg, Australia. He has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Merck/MSD, Merck Serono, and Celgene; he has received honoraria from Roche and Merck; and he has received travel grants from Roche and BMS. He made these comments as the designated discussant for the report and in an interview.
The new analyses reported by Dr. Peters addressed the question of whether patients who receive nivolumab in place of docetaxel are disadvantaged during the first 3 months of treatment. The data showed that in CheckMate057 an excess of 15 patients died in the group randomized to receive nivolumab during the first 3 months on treatment, compared with the control patients treated with docetaxel. This is concerning. Ideally, we’d like to see the patients treated with immunotherapy respond right away, but it takes time for immunotherapy to have an effect.
In almost all immunotherapy studies, a high proportion of patients, often about a third, progress during the first 2-3 months on treatment. It will be important to identify these patients and try new treatment approaches such as combined immunotherapies or a combination of chemotherapy with immunotherapy.
The early excess mortality of 15 patients with nivolumab seen in CheckMate057 must be viewed in context. It represents just 5% of patients randomized to receive nivolumab, and hence this finding should not influence clinical practice. Nivolumab treatment produced a very strong treatment benefit overall during follow-up at 12 and 18 months, compared with docetaxel in this study.
Immunotherapy agents like nivolumab have another advantage, compared with standard chemotherapy drugs, beyond better efficacy in selected patients. Immunotherapy drugs are also generally safer than chemotherapy agents, producing fewer adverse effects. For that reason alone, immunotherapy is preferred as long as its efficacy is comparable to that of chemotherapy. Even in patients with a tumor that does not express PD-L1, and even though some non–small cell lung cancer patients will die early when put on immunotherapy, overall opinion in the clinical community favors a drug like nivolumab over chemotherapy because of its better safety.
Paul Mitchell, MD, is a medical oncologist at the Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre in Heidelberg, Australia. He has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Merck/MSD, Merck Serono, and Celgene; he has received honoraria from Roche and Merck; and he has received travel grants from Roche and BMS. He made these comments as the designated discussant for the report and in an interview.
The new analyses reported by Dr. Peters addressed the question of whether patients who receive nivolumab in place of docetaxel are disadvantaged during the first 3 months of treatment. The data showed that in CheckMate057 an excess of 15 patients died in the group randomized to receive nivolumab during the first 3 months on treatment, compared with the control patients treated with docetaxel. This is concerning. Ideally, we’d like to see the patients treated with immunotherapy respond right away, but it takes time for immunotherapy to have an effect.
In almost all immunotherapy studies, a high proportion of patients, often about a third, progress during the first 2-3 months on treatment. It will be important to identify these patients and try new treatment approaches such as combined immunotherapies or a combination of chemotherapy with immunotherapy.
The early excess mortality of 15 patients with nivolumab seen in CheckMate057 must be viewed in context. It represents just 5% of patients randomized to receive nivolumab, and hence this finding should not influence clinical practice. Nivolumab treatment produced a very strong treatment benefit overall during follow-up at 12 and 18 months, compared with docetaxel in this study.
Immunotherapy agents like nivolumab have another advantage, compared with standard chemotherapy drugs, beyond better efficacy in selected patients. Immunotherapy drugs are also generally safer than chemotherapy agents, producing fewer adverse effects. For that reason alone, immunotherapy is preferred as long as its efficacy is comparable to that of chemotherapy. Even in patients with a tumor that does not express PD-L1, and even though some non–small cell lung cancer patients will die early when put on immunotherapy, overall opinion in the clinical community favors a drug like nivolumab over chemotherapy because of its better safety.
Paul Mitchell, MD, is a medical oncologist at the Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre in Heidelberg, Australia. He has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Merck/MSD, Merck Serono, and Celgene; he has received honoraria from Roche and Merck; and he has received travel grants from Roche and BMS. He made these comments as the designated discussant for the report and in an interview.
VIENNA – The oncologic immunotherapy drug nivolumab works by binding PD-1 receptors, but PD-L1 ligand levels in lung cancers do not predict how responsive patients are to the drug.
“While enhanced clinical activity with nivolumab correlates with increasing tumor PD-L1 expression, nivolumab-treated patients with little or no PD-L1 expression have a comparable probability of response, more durable responses, comparable overall survival, and fewer treatment-related adverse events, compared with patients treated with docetaxel,” Solange Peters, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
But a more detailed assessment of the survival data by Dr. Peters showed an unexpected pattern of an early hazard among the nivolumab patients. During the first 3 months on randomized treatment, 15 more patients died in the nivolumab arm than in the docetaxel arm. This quickly reversed during months 4-6 on treatment, when nine more patients died on docetaxel than on nivolumab, Dr. Peters reported. By 12 months after the onset of treatment, overall survival was 51% in the nivolumab group and 39% among those randomized to docetaxel.
A post hoc analysis showed a trend to a higher risk for death during the first 3 months of nivolumab treatment among patients with poorer prognostic features, more aggressive disease, and low or no tumor expression of PD-L1, Dr. Peters said.
Although patients with tumors with high levels of PD-L1 expression had the best response rate to nivolumab, patients with no PD-L1 expression had a response to nivolumab that was roughly equivalent to the response to docetaxel among patients randomized to chemotherapy. “Deep and durable responses were seen to nivolumab irrespective of the level of PD-L1 expression,” she said. Among patients with tumors that had a less than 1% rate of PD-L1 expression, the objective response rate was 9% with nivolumab and 15% with docetaxel. Among patients with tumors that had a PD-L1 expression rate of 1% or greater, the objective responses rate was 31% with nivolumab and 12% with docetaxel.
In a landmark analysis that excluded patients who died during the first 3 months on treatment, the pattern of responses to nivolumab and its advantage over docetaxel were similar among patients with no or low PD-L1 expression and among all patients enrolled in the study. In this landmark analysis, the hazard ratio for death after 3 months was reduced with nivolumab treatment by 34% among patients with no or low PD-L1 expression and by 31% in the entire study population, Dr. Peters reported.
CheckMate057 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that markets nivolumab (Opdivo). Dr. Peters has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb and to several other drug companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
VIENNA – The oncologic immunotherapy drug nivolumab works by binding PD-1 receptors, but PD-L1 ligand levels in lung cancers do not predict how responsive patients are to the drug.
“While enhanced clinical activity with nivolumab correlates with increasing tumor PD-L1 expression, nivolumab-treated patients with little or no PD-L1 expression have a comparable probability of response, more durable responses, comparable overall survival, and fewer treatment-related adverse events, compared with patients treated with docetaxel,” Solange Peters, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
But a more detailed assessment of the survival data by Dr. Peters showed an unexpected pattern of an early hazard among the nivolumab patients. During the first 3 months on randomized treatment, 15 more patients died in the nivolumab arm than in the docetaxel arm. This quickly reversed during months 4-6 on treatment, when nine more patients died on docetaxel than on nivolumab, Dr. Peters reported. By 12 months after the onset of treatment, overall survival was 51% in the nivolumab group and 39% among those randomized to docetaxel.
A post hoc analysis showed a trend to a higher risk for death during the first 3 months of nivolumab treatment among patients with poorer prognostic features, more aggressive disease, and low or no tumor expression of PD-L1, Dr. Peters said.
Although patients with tumors with high levels of PD-L1 expression had the best response rate to nivolumab, patients with no PD-L1 expression had a response to nivolumab that was roughly equivalent to the response to docetaxel among patients randomized to chemotherapy. “Deep and durable responses were seen to nivolumab irrespective of the level of PD-L1 expression,” she said. Among patients with tumors that had a less than 1% rate of PD-L1 expression, the objective response rate was 9% with nivolumab and 15% with docetaxel. Among patients with tumors that had a PD-L1 expression rate of 1% or greater, the objective responses rate was 31% with nivolumab and 12% with docetaxel.
In a landmark analysis that excluded patients who died during the first 3 months on treatment, the pattern of responses to nivolumab and its advantage over docetaxel were similar among patients with no or low PD-L1 expression and among all patients enrolled in the study. In this landmark analysis, the hazard ratio for death after 3 months was reduced with nivolumab treatment by 34% among patients with no or low PD-L1 expression and by 31% in the entire study population, Dr. Peters reported.
CheckMate057 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that markets nivolumab (Opdivo). Dr. Peters has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb and to several other drug companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT WCLC 2016
Key clinical point:
Major finding: When tumors had at least 1% PD-L1 expression, objective response rates were 31% with nivolumab and 12% with docetaxel.
Data source: CheckMate057, a pivotal trial of nivolumab that enrolled 592 patients with advanced, nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer.
Disclosures: CheckMate057 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the company that markets nivolumab (Opdivo). Dr. Peters has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb and to several other drug companies.
Subclinical AF found in 1/3 of asymptomatic elderly
NEW ORLEANS – About a third of elderly people at high cardiovascular risk but otherwise healthy and asymptomatic had subclinical atrial fibrillation in a multicenter study of 273 people.
This finding that subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF) is “extremely common” in elderly people with cardiovascular risk factors “weakens the case that detecting subclinical AF in patients following a stroke implies causality” of the stroke “because subclinical AF is so prevalent,” Jeff S. Healey, MD, said at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.
“I think that subclinical AF is a distinct subgroup of AF, with a risk for stroke that is quite low, about 1.5%-2% per year,” said Dr. Healey, a cardiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. “Given that this was an elderly population [study participants averaged 74 years old] with bleeding risk, it’s reasonable to question” whether many people with subclinical AF need anticoagulation. The question of whether “45 seconds of AF seen 6 months after a stroke is worthy of treatment with an anticoagulant should give people pause,” he said.
The Prevalence of Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation Using an Implantable Cardiac Monitor (ASSERT-II) study initially enrolled 273 people at 26 sites in Canada and The Netherlands. Researchers actually placed a loop recorder in 256, and complete follow-up of at least 9 months occurred for 252. Enrolled patients had to be at 65 years old, and have at least one of these risk factors for AF or stroke: a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater; documented obstructive sleep apnea; or a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2. In addition, enrollees also had to have one of these risk factors for AF: a left atrial volume of at least 58 ml; a left atrial diameter of at least 4.4 cm; or a serum NT-proBNP level of at least 290 pg/mL.
Dr. Healey and his associates prespecified subclinical AF as at least 5 minutes of AF seen in the loop recording during follow-up, which occurred in 34% of the participants during an average 16 months of follow-up, he reported. At least 30 minutes of AF occurred in 22% during follow-up, at least 6 hours in 7%, and at least 24 hours in 3%.
In a prespecified set of subgroup analyses, people with a large left atrium formed the only subgroup with a statistically significant association with outcome. People with a left atrial size at or above the study median of 73.5 ml had an 85% increased rate of subclinical AF compared with those with smaller left atria in the multivariate analysis. But increased left atrial size alone did not fully explain subclinical atrial fibrillation. Even among participants in the lowest quartile for left atrial diameter, less than 4.3 cm, the prevalence of subclinical AF was 27%, Dr. Healey noted.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
The results reported by Dr. Healey provide robust data that bridges a major gap we have had in our understanding of atrial fibrillation. The new finding of a high prevalence of subclinical atrial fibrillation in elderly people with cardiovascular risk factors, regardless of whether they had a prior stroke, substantially weakens the case that subclinical atrial fibrillation detected following a stroke has a causal relationship to the stroke. This implication is quite important.
Many questions remain about the meaning of subclinical atrial fibrillation. What relationship does it have with stroke, and what thresholds exist for atrial fibrillation to raise stroke risk? Also, what are the risks and benefits of anticoagulation in people with subclinical AF and is intermittent anticoagulation helpful?
N.A. Mark Estes III, MD , is professor of medicine and director of the New England Cardiac Arrhythmia Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. He has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Medtronic and St. Jude. He made these comments as designated discussant for ASSERT-II.
The results reported by Dr. Healey provide robust data that bridges a major gap we have had in our understanding of atrial fibrillation. The new finding of a high prevalence of subclinical atrial fibrillation in elderly people with cardiovascular risk factors, regardless of whether they had a prior stroke, substantially weakens the case that subclinical atrial fibrillation detected following a stroke has a causal relationship to the stroke. This implication is quite important.
Many questions remain about the meaning of subclinical atrial fibrillation. What relationship does it have with stroke, and what thresholds exist for atrial fibrillation to raise stroke risk? Also, what are the risks and benefits of anticoagulation in people with subclinical AF and is intermittent anticoagulation helpful?
N.A. Mark Estes III, MD , is professor of medicine and director of the New England Cardiac Arrhythmia Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. He has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Medtronic and St. Jude. He made these comments as designated discussant for ASSERT-II.
The results reported by Dr. Healey provide robust data that bridges a major gap we have had in our understanding of atrial fibrillation. The new finding of a high prevalence of subclinical atrial fibrillation in elderly people with cardiovascular risk factors, regardless of whether they had a prior stroke, substantially weakens the case that subclinical atrial fibrillation detected following a stroke has a causal relationship to the stroke. This implication is quite important.
Many questions remain about the meaning of subclinical atrial fibrillation. What relationship does it have with stroke, and what thresholds exist for atrial fibrillation to raise stroke risk? Also, what are the risks and benefits of anticoagulation in people with subclinical AF and is intermittent anticoagulation helpful?
N.A. Mark Estes III, MD , is professor of medicine and director of the New England Cardiac Arrhythmia Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. He has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Medtronic and St. Jude. He made these comments as designated discussant for ASSERT-II.
NEW ORLEANS – About a third of elderly people at high cardiovascular risk but otherwise healthy and asymptomatic had subclinical atrial fibrillation in a multicenter study of 273 people.
This finding that subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF) is “extremely common” in elderly people with cardiovascular risk factors “weakens the case that detecting subclinical AF in patients following a stroke implies causality” of the stroke “because subclinical AF is so prevalent,” Jeff S. Healey, MD, said at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.
“I think that subclinical AF is a distinct subgroup of AF, with a risk for stroke that is quite low, about 1.5%-2% per year,” said Dr. Healey, a cardiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. “Given that this was an elderly population [study participants averaged 74 years old] with bleeding risk, it’s reasonable to question” whether many people with subclinical AF need anticoagulation. The question of whether “45 seconds of AF seen 6 months after a stroke is worthy of treatment with an anticoagulant should give people pause,” he said.
The Prevalence of Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation Using an Implantable Cardiac Monitor (ASSERT-II) study initially enrolled 273 people at 26 sites in Canada and The Netherlands. Researchers actually placed a loop recorder in 256, and complete follow-up of at least 9 months occurred for 252. Enrolled patients had to be at 65 years old, and have at least one of these risk factors for AF or stroke: a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater; documented obstructive sleep apnea; or a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2. In addition, enrollees also had to have one of these risk factors for AF: a left atrial volume of at least 58 ml; a left atrial diameter of at least 4.4 cm; or a serum NT-proBNP level of at least 290 pg/mL.
Dr. Healey and his associates prespecified subclinical AF as at least 5 minutes of AF seen in the loop recording during follow-up, which occurred in 34% of the participants during an average 16 months of follow-up, he reported. At least 30 minutes of AF occurred in 22% during follow-up, at least 6 hours in 7%, and at least 24 hours in 3%.
In a prespecified set of subgroup analyses, people with a large left atrium formed the only subgroup with a statistically significant association with outcome. People with a left atrial size at or above the study median of 73.5 ml had an 85% increased rate of subclinical AF compared with those with smaller left atria in the multivariate analysis. But increased left atrial size alone did not fully explain subclinical atrial fibrillation. Even among participants in the lowest quartile for left atrial diameter, less than 4.3 cm, the prevalence of subclinical AF was 27%, Dr. Healey noted.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
NEW ORLEANS – About a third of elderly people at high cardiovascular risk but otherwise healthy and asymptomatic had subclinical atrial fibrillation in a multicenter study of 273 people.
This finding that subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF) is “extremely common” in elderly people with cardiovascular risk factors “weakens the case that detecting subclinical AF in patients following a stroke implies causality” of the stroke “because subclinical AF is so prevalent,” Jeff S. Healey, MD, said at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.
“I think that subclinical AF is a distinct subgroup of AF, with a risk for stroke that is quite low, about 1.5%-2% per year,” said Dr. Healey, a cardiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. “Given that this was an elderly population [study participants averaged 74 years old] with bleeding risk, it’s reasonable to question” whether many people with subclinical AF need anticoagulation. The question of whether “45 seconds of AF seen 6 months after a stroke is worthy of treatment with an anticoagulant should give people pause,” he said.
The Prevalence of Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation Using an Implantable Cardiac Monitor (ASSERT-II) study initially enrolled 273 people at 26 sites in Canada and The Netherlands. Researchers actually placed a loop recorder in 256, and complete follow-up of at least 9 months occurred for 252. Enrolled patients had to be at 65 years old, and have at least one of these risk factors for AF or stroke: a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater; documented obstructive sleep apnea; or a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2. In addition, enrollees also had to have one of these risk factors for AF: a left atrial volume of at least 58 ml; a left atrial diameter of at least 4.4 cm; or a serum NT-proBNP level of at least 290 pg/mL.
Dr. Healey and his associates prespecified subclinical AF as at least 5 minutes of AF seen in the loop recording during follow-up, which occurred in 34% of the participants during an average 16 months of follow-up, he reported. At least 30 minutes of AF occurred in 22% during follow-up, at least 6 hours in 7%, and at least 24 hours in 3%.
In a prespecified set of subgroup analyses, people with a large left atrium formed the only subgroup with a statistically significant association with outcome. People with a left atrial size at or above the study median of 73.5 ml had an 85% increased rate of subclinical AF compared with those with smaller left atria in the multivariate analysis. But increased left atrial size alone did not fully explain subclinical atrial fibrillation. Even among participants in the lowest quartile for left atrial diameter, less than 4.3 cm, the prevalence of subclinical AF was 27%, Dr. Healey noted.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: One-third of asymptomatic elderly people with cardiovascular risk factors had subclinical atrial fibrillation.
Data source: A multicenter study with 252 people followed for an average of 16 months.
Disclosures: Dr. Healey has been a consultant to or received honoraria from Bayer, Medtronic, Pfizer and Servier. He has received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic and St. Jude.
PD-L1 testing in NSCLC patients shows high concordance
VIENNA – Several different tests for PD-L1 levels in tumor cells of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer showed high concordance when run at seven French centers, boosting confidence in the clinical utility of this testing to guide first-line pembrolizumab treatment of patients with this cancer.
Among 27 laboratory-developed tests for PD-L1 (programmed death–ligand 1) levels in tumor cells that used any one of three prespecified testing platforms (made by Dako, Ventana, or Leica), 14 (52%) had “similar” concordance when compared with reference assays, Julien Adam, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. “These results will provide the basis for making national recommendations for PD-L1 testing in patients with non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC]” in France, added Dr. Adam, a pathologist at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Paris. “We expect to produce recommendations by the second half of 2017.”
Although the results came entirely from French centers, the results will also likely influence U.S. practice, predicted Shirish M. Gadgeel, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit. The approval pembrolizumab (Keytruda) received from the Food and Drug Administration in October specified that patients with metastatic NSCLC had to show PD-L1 expression in the tumor using a FDA-approved test to receive pembrolizumab as first-line treatment.
“Before pembrolizumab’s approval there was no incentive to do PD-L1 testing,” but now it is becoming routine, he said. “It has been challenging to U.S. laboratories to decide which platform and antibody to use. Harmonization gives us confidence that if you have a platform and appropriate antibody you should be able to use the results clinically. I think the French results can be extrapolated” to U.S. practice because the results “came from multiple labs using multiple antibodies and platforms,” Dr. Gadgeel said.
The French study arranged for PD-L1 testing of NSCLC specimens from 41 patients selected as broadly representative of PD-L1 expression levels. The seven participating centers used a Dako (three centers), Ventana (two centers), or Leica (two centers) testing platform and one of five available antibodies that bind PD-L1. Every center ran tests that depended on different antibodies, and tests occurred on both tumor cells and immune cells. In total the seven testing sites collectively performed 35 stainings on each specimen for a total of 1,435 slides. In tumor cells, the overall, weighted kappa coefficient for concordance was 0.81 for tests that used the SP263 antibody and 0.78 for those using the E1L3N antibody, both high enough to make them potential candidates for routine use, said Dr. Adam. The 28-8 and 22C3 antibodies also showed high concordance levels. In contrast, some antibodies used at certain centers produced unacceptable results with concordance coefficients of less than 0.5. The best performing antibody overall was SP263.
No test measuring PD-L1 level in immune cells had an acceptable concordance rate, Dr. Adam also reported.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Researchers have developed several different antibodies for measuring levels of PD-L1 in tumor cells and the antibodies can be used in several different testing platforms. Although most laboratories focus on using one specific immunohistochemical platform, the overall status of real-world PD-L1 testing is messy.
In the results reported by Dr. Adam, concordance weighted kappa coefficients of 0.8 or higher show extremely good concordance, and coefficients of 0.6-0.79 show good concordance. Several of the tests and testing sites reported by Dr. Adam showed concordance coefficients within these ranges. In certain other cases the concordance coefficients were very low, which prompts concern about the reliability of these low-scoring tests. The results show that the results you see in one laboratory with a specific antibody and platform test may not always remain consistent with the same antibody and platform used elsewhere.
Michael Boyer, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and a thoracic oncologist and chief clinical officer of the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney. He has received research support from Merck and from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.
Researchers have developed several different antibodies for measuring levels of PD-L1 in tumor cells and the antibodies can be used in several different testing platforms. Although most laboratories focus on using one specific immunohistochemical platform, the overall status of real-world PD-L1 testing is messy.
In the results reported by Dr. Adam, concordance weighted kappa coefficients of 0.8 or higher show extremely good concordance, and coefficients of 0.6-0.79 show good concordance. Several of the tests and testing sites reported by Dr. Adam showed concordance coefficients within these ranges. In certain other cases the concordance coefficients were very low, which prompts concern about the reliability of these low-scoring tests. The results show that the results you see in one laboratory with a specific antibody and platform test may not always remain consistent with the same antibody and platform used elsewhere.
Michael Boyer, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and a thoracic oncologist and chief clinical officer of the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney. He has received research support from Merck and from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.
Researchers have developed several different antibodies for measuring levels of PD-L1 in tumor cells and the antibodies can be used in several different testing platforms. Although most laboratories focus on using one specific immunohistochemical platform, the overall status of real-world PD-L1 testing is messy.
In the results reported by Dr. Adam, concordance weighted kappa coefficients of 0.8 or higher show extremely good concordance, and coefficients of 0.6-0.79 show good concordance. Several of the tests and testing sites reported by Dr. Adam showed concordance coefficients within these ranges. In certain other cases the concordance coefficients were very low, which prompts concern about the reliability of these low-scoring tests. The results show that the results you see in one laboratory with a specific antibody and platform test may not always remain consistent with the same antibody and platform used elsewhere.
Michael Boyer, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and a thoracic oncologist and chief clinical officer of the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney. He has received research support from Merck and from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.
VIENNA – Several different tests for PD-L1 levels in tumor cells of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer showed high concordance when run at seven French centers, boosting confidence in the clinical utility of this testing to guide first-line pembrolizumab treatment of patients with this cancer.
Among 27 laboratory-developed tests for PD-L1 (programmed death–ligand 1) levels in tumor cells that used any one of three prespecified testing platforms (made by Dako, Ventana, or Leica), 14 (52%) had “similar” concordance when compared with reference assays, Julien Adam, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. “These results will provide the basis for making national recommendations for PD-L1 testing in patients with non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC]” in France, added Dr. Adam, a pathologist at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Paris. “We expect to produce recommendations by the second half of 2017.”
Although the results came entirely from French centers, the results will also likely influence U.S. practice, predicted Shirish M. Gadgeel, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit. The approval pembrolizumab (Keytruda) received from the Food and Drug Administration in October specified that patients with metastatic NSCLC had to show PD-L1 expression in the tumor using a FDA-approved test to receive pembrolizumab as first-line treatment.
“Before pembrolizumab’s approval there was no incentive to do PD-L1 testing,” but now it is becoming routine, he said. “It has been challenging to U.S. laboratories to decide which platform and antibody to use. Harmonization gives us confidence that if you have a platform and appropriate antibody you should be able to use the results clinically. I think the French results can be extrapolated” to U.S. practice because the results “came from multiple labs using multiple antibodies and platforms,” Dr. Gadgeel said.
The French study arranged for PD-L1 testing of NSCLC specimens from 41 patients selected as broadly representative of PD-L1 expression levels. The seven participating centers used a Dako (three centers), Ventana (two centers), or Leica (two centers) testing platform and one of five available antibodies that bind PD-L1. Every center ran tests that depended on different antibodies, and tests occurred on both tumor cells and immune cells. In total the seven testing sites collectively performed 35 stainings on each specimen for a total of 1,435 slides. In tumor cells, the overall, weighted kappa coefficient for concordance was 0.81 for tests that used the SP263 antibody and 0.78 for those using the E1L3N antibody, both high enough to make them potential candidates for routine use, said Dr. Adam. The 28-8 and 22C3 antibodies also showed high concordance levels. In contrast, some antibodies used at certain centers produced unacceptable results with concordance coefficients of less than 0.5. The best performing antibody overall was SP263.
No test measuring PD-L1 level in immune cells had an acceptable concordance rate, Dr. Adam also reported.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
VIENNA – Several different tests for PD-L1 levels in tumor cells of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer showed high concordance when run at seven French centers, boosting confidence in the clinical utility of this testing to guide first-line pembrolizumab treatment of patients with this cancer.
Among 27 laboratory-developed tests for PD-L1 (programmed death–ligand 1) levels in tumor cells that used any one of three prespecified testing platforms (made by Dako, Ventana, or Leica), 14 (52%) had “similar” concordance when compared with reference assays, Julien Adam, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. “These results will provide the basis for making national recommendations for PD-L1 testing in patients with non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC]” in France, added Dr. Adam, a pathologist at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Paris. “We expect to produce recommendations by the second half of 2017.”
Although the results came entirely from French centers, the results will also likely influence U.S. practice, predicted Shirish M. Gadgeel, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit. The approval pembrolizumab (Keytruda) received from the Food and Drug Administration in October specified that patients with metastatic NSCLC had to show PD-L1 expression in the tumor using a FDA-approved test to receive pembrolizumab as first-line treatment.
“Before pembrolizumab’s approval there was no incentive to do PD-L1 testing,” but now it is becoming routine, he said. “It has been challenging to U.S. laboratories to decide which platform and antibody to use. Harmonization gives us confidence that if you have a platform and appropriate antibody you should be able to use the results clinically. I think the French results can be extrapolated” to U.S. practice because the results “came from multiple labs using multiple antibodies and platforms,” Dr. Gadgeel said.
The French study arranged for PD-L1 testing of NSCLC specimens from 41 patients selected as broadly representative of PD-L1 expression levels. The seven participating centers used a Dako (three centers), Ventana (two centers), or Leica (two centers) testing platform and one of five available antibodies that bind PD-L1. Every center ran tests that depended on different antibodies, and tests occurred on both tumor cells and immune cells. In total the seven testing sites collectively performed 35 stainings on each specimen for a total of 1,435 slides. In tumor cells, the overall, weighted kappa coefficient for concordance was 0.81 for tests that used the SP263 antibody and 0.78 for those using the E1L3N antibody, both high enough to make them potential candidates for routine use, said Dr. Adam. The 28-8 and 22C3 antibodies also showed high concordance levels. In contrast, some antibodies used at certain centers produced unacceptable results with concordance coefficients of less than 0.5. The best performing antibody overall was SP263.
No test measuring PD-L1 level in immune cells had an acceptable concordance rate, Dr. Adam also reported.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT WCLC 2016
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The concordance weighted kappa coefficient was highest for tests using the SP263 antibody, with an average coefficient of 0.81.
Data source: Forty-one non–small cell lung cancer specimens subjected to a total of 35 different tests.
Disclosures: Funding for the study came from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche. Dr. Adam has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, HalioDx, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche. Dr. Gadgeel has been a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Genentech, and GlaxoSmithKline and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Genentech. Dr. Brahmer has served on an advisory board for Merck.
Options narrow for acute decompensated heart failure
Acute decompensated heart failure is a condition that clinicians want to prevent rather than treat.
The idea that patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure can have a substantial change in their prognosis from an acute intervention given in the hospital seemed to finally hit a brick wall in November at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Treatment of acute heart failure patients with the vasodilating natriuretic peptide ularitide failed to cut long-term cardiovascular mortality or improve several other acute and mid-term outcomes in the TRUE-AHF trial. In a second report, ATHENA-HF, acute treatment with high-dose spironolactone during acute heart failure hospitalizations failed to improve a marker of heart failure severity, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide.
What alternative interventions are left? Dr. Yancy, as well as Milton Packer, MD, the cardiologist who led TRUE-HF, had somewhat similar answers.
In his discussion of TRUE-AHF, Dr. Yancy cited two possibilities: greater use of the relatively new drug formulation sacubitril plus valsartan (Entresto), which showed strong benefit treating patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); and expanded use of pulmonary-artery pressure (PAP) monitoring using an implanted device that gives clinicians early warning when a heart failure patient’s fluid volume moves into the danger zone that precedes by days or weeks the acute decompensation that produces dyspnea and drives a patient to the hospital.
Increasing experience with PAP monitoring “continues to endorse the notion that having early warning [of fluid overload] is important,” Dr. Yancy said in an interview. “The point of acuity in acute decompensated heart failure predates hospital admission, and this monitoring system allows us to catch this before it causes an emergency department visit. The data are very persuasive.”
“PAP usually rises 2-4 weeks before a heart failure hospitalization. Perhaps we need to focus more on long-term treatment rather than treatment in the hospital.” That’s especially true for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) because right now no treatment is clearly proven to improve HFpEF outcomes (although several experts make a persuasive case for spironolactone).
“Tight regulation of volume status is our best chance to improve outcomes in HFpEF,” said Dr. Stevenson, who helped pioneer the idea of PAP monitoring for heart failure patients. “Maintaining good volume is very important for HFpEF patients.”
But success with PAP monitoring requires more than gathering the pressure data. Producing benefit for patients “is predicated on having an infrastructure to accommodate the influx of PAP data, being nimble enough to respond to the data and being very precise about which patients you use this in,” cautioned Dr. Yancy. “The tool is not beneficial if the infrastructure is not there,”
The idea is still so new (the first implanted PAP monitor received U.S. approval in 2014) that at his institution, Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, about a dozen patients now have a monitor, he said.
“We’re looking to use it in patients with HFpEF, whom we can’t offer anything else. I’m intrigued by what I see,” in this first wave of Northwestern patients. Dr. Yancy’s anecdotal experience with PAP monitoring so far “helps endorse what the trial results suggested” about providing incremental benefit to heart failure patients.
“The solution is to prevent hospitalization in the first place with the medications we already have, but they’re not used. The medications we already have are enough, but they need to be used,” Dr. Packer told me in an interview during the meeting. He speculated that perhaps 10%-15% of HFrEF patients currently receive the full guideline-directed regimen of heart failure drugs. “That’s unbelievable,” he exclaimed. If clinicians diligently treated advanced HFrEF patients with these four agents, “you’d see a 60%, 70% drop in hospitalizations,” he suggested.
Dr. Packer put some of the blame for underuse of guideline-directed medications on the low financial incentive physicians have to vigorously apply this strategy.
He backed PAP monitoring as a good additional step for selected patients with unstable heart failure. “But as a general approach to managing patients with class III HFrEF, first put them on optimal medical therapy; then we can talk about an invasive procedure to place a PAP monitoring device.”
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Acute decompensated heart failure is a condition that clinicians want to prevent rather than treat.
The idea that patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure can have a substantial change in their prognosis from an acute intervention given in the hospital seemed to finally hit a brick wall in November at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Treatment of acute heart failure patients with the vasodilating natriuretic peptide ularitide failed to cut long-term cardiovascular mortality or improve several other acute and mid-term outcomes in the TRUE-AHF trial. In a second report, ATHENA-HF, acute treatment with high-dose spironolactone during acute heart failure hospitalizations failed to improve a marker of heart failure severity, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide.
What alternative interventions are left? Dr. Yancy, as well as Milton Packer, MD, the cardiologist who led TRUE-HF, had somewhat similar answers.
In his discussion of TRUE-AHF, Dr. Yancy cited two possibilities: greater use of the relatively new drug formulation sacubitril plus valsartan (Entresto), which showed strong benefit treating patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); and expanded use of pulmonary-artery pressure (PAP) monitoring using an implanted device that gives clinicians early warning when a heart failure patient’s fluid volume moves into the danger zone that precedes by days or weeks the acute decompensation that produces dyspnea and drives a patient to the hospital.
Increasing experience with PAP monitoring “continues to endorse the notion that having early warning [of fluid overload] is important,” Dr. Yancy said in an interview. “The point of acuity in acute decompensated heart failure predates hospital admission, and this monitoring system allows us to catch this before it causes an emergency department visit. The data are very persuasive.”
“PAP usually rises 2-4 weeks before a heart failure hospitalization. Perhaps we need to focus more on long-term treatment rather than treatment in the hospital.” That’s especially true for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) because right now no treatment is clearly proven to improve HFpEF outcomes (although several experts make a persuasive case for spironolactone).
“Tight regulation of volume status is our best chance to improve outcomes in HFpEF,” said Dr. Stevenson, who helped pioneer the idea of PAP monitoring for heart failure patients. “Maintaining good volume is very important for HFpEF patients.”
But success with PAP monitoring requires more than gathering the pressure data. Producing benefit for patients “is predicated on having an infrastructure to accommodate the influx of PAP data, being nimble enough to respond to the data and being very precise about which patients you use this in,” cautioned Dr. Yancy. “The tool is not beneficial if the infrastructure is not there,”
The idea is still so new (the first implanted PAP monitor received U.S. approval in 2014) that at his institution, Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, about a dozen patients now have a monitor, he said.
“We’re looking to use it in patients with HFpEF, whom we can’t offer anything else. I’m intrigued by what I see,” in this first wave of Northwestern patients. Dr. Yancy’s anecdotal experience with PAP monitoring so far “helps endorse what the trial results suggested” about providing incremental benefit to heart failure patients.
“The solution is to prevent hospitalization in the first place with the medications we already have, but they’re not used. The medications we already have are enough, but they need to be used,” Dr. Packer told me in an interview during the meeting. He speculated that perhaps 10%-15% of HFrEF patients currently receive the full guideline-directed regimen of heart failure drugs. “That’s unbelievable,” he exclaimed. If clinicians diligently treated advanced HFrEF patients with these four agents, “you’d see a 60%, 70% drop in hospitalizations,” he suggested.
Dr. Packer put some of the blame for underuse of guideline-directed medications on the low financial incentive physicians have to vigorously apply this strategy.
He backed PAP monitoring as a good additional step for selected patients with unstable heart failure. “But as a general approach to managing patients with class III HFrEF, first put them on optimal medical therapy; then we can talk about an invasive procedure to place a PAP monitoring device.”
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Acute decompensated heart failure is a condition that clinicians want to prevent rather than treat.
The idea that patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure can have a substantial change in their prognosis from an acute intervention given in the hospital seemed to finally hit a brick wall in November at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Treatment of acute heart failure patients with the vasodilating natriuretic peptide ularitide failed to cut long-term cardiovascular mortality or improve several other acute and mid-term outcomes in the TRUE-AHF trial. In a second report, ATHENA-HF, acute treatment with high-dose spironolactone during acute heart failure hospitalizations failed to improve a marker of heart failure severity, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide.
What alternative interventions are left? Dr. Yancy, as well as Milton Packer, MD, the cardiologist who led TRUE-HF, had somewhat similar answers.
In his discussion of TRUE-AHF, Dr. Yancy cited two possibilities: greater use of the relatively new drug formulation sacubitril plus valsartan (Entresto), which showed strong benefit treating patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); and expanded use of pulmonary-artery pressure (PAP) monitoring using an implanted device that gives clinicians early warning when a heart failure patient’s fluid volume moves into the danger zone that precedes by days or weeks the acute decompensation that produces dyspnea and drives a patient to the hospital.
Increasing experience with PAP monitoring “continues to endorse the notion that having early warning [of fluid overload] is important,” Dr. Yancy said in an interview. “The point of acuity in acute decompensated heart failure predates hospital admission, and this monitoring system allows us to catch this before it causes an emergency department visit. The data are very persuasive.”
“PAP usually rises 2-4 weeks before a heart failure hospitalization. Perhaps we need to focus more on long-term treatment rather than treatment in the hospital.” That’s especially true for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) because right now no treatment is clearly proven to improve HFpEF outcomes (although several experts make a persuasive case for spironolactone).
“Tight regulation of volume status is our best chance to improve outcomes in HFpEF,” said Dr. Stevenson, who helped pioneer the idea of PAP monitoring for heart failure patients. “Maintaining good volume is very important for HFpEF patients.”
But success with PAP monitoring requires more than gathering the pressure data. Producing benefit for patients “is predicated on having an infrastructure to accommodate the influx of PAP data, being nimble enough to respond to the data and being very precise about which patients you use this in,” cautioned Dr. Yancy. “The tool is not beneficial if the infrastructure is not there,”
The idea is still so new (the first implanted PAP monitor received U.S. approval in 2014) that at his institution, Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, about a dozen patients now have a monitor, he said.
“We’re looking to use it in patients with HFpEF, whom we can’t offer anything else. I’m intrigued by what I see,” in this first wave of Northwestern patients. Dr. Yancy’s anecdotal experience with PAP monitoring so far “helps endorse what the trial results suggested” about providing incremental benefit to heart failure patients.
“The solution is to prevent hospitalization in the first place with the medications we already have, but they’re not used. The medications we already have are enough, but they need to be used,” Dr. Packer told me in an interview during the meeting. He speculated that perhaps 10%-15% of HFrEF patients currently receive the full guideline-directed regimen of heart failure drugs. “That’s unbelievable,” he exclaimed. If clinicians diligently treated advanced HFrEF patients with these four agents, “you’d see a 60%, 70% drop in hospitalizations,” he suggested.
Dr. Packer put some of the blame for underuse of guideline-directed medications on the low financial incentive physicians have to vigorously apply this strategy.
He backed PAP monitoring as a good additional step for selected patients with unstable heart failure. “But as a general approach to managing patients with class III HFrEF, first put them on optimal medical therapy; then we can talk about an invasive procedure to place a PAP monitoring device.”
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Entresto cuts LV mass in hypertensive patients
NEW ORLEANS – Hypertensive patients without heart failure treated with the heart failure formulation sacubitril plus valsartan had a significantly greater drop in their left ventricular mass than did patients treated with olmesartan in a randomized trial with 114 patients.
Treatment with sacubitril plus valsartan for both 3 and 12 months led to roughly twice as much reduction in left ventricular (LV) mass as did treatment with olmesartan, and this difference persisted after adjustment for between-group differences in blood pressure reduction, Roland E. Schmieder, MD, reported at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.
During clinical development of sacubitril plus valsartan (Entresto), the company that owns this compound, Novartis, ran a few small studies using the formulation to treat hypertension, but eventually those studies stopped, he said in an interview. “I hope this pushes development of other neprilysin inhibitor formulations for their blood pressure effects. I think this finding helps us understand why sacubitril plus valsartan was so effective for treating heart failure.” (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:933-1004.)
The study enrolled patients with mild or moderate hypertension; the average blood pressure of enrolled patients was 155/92 mm Hg. They averaged 60 years of age, two-thirds were men, and their average LV mass index at baseline was 72 g/m2. The study excluded patients with heart failure. Patients randomized to receive sacubitril plus valsartan began on a dose of 200 mg/day, and after 2 weeks this rose to 400 mg/day, the maximum recommended dosage in the labeling. Patients randomized to olmesartan began on 20 mg/day, and after 2 weeks their dosage increased to 40 mg/day. Patients in both arms were also eligible to receive amlodipine for additional blood pressure lowering if deemed necessary by the treating physician.
The sacubitril plus valsartan group patients had an average cut in systolic blood pressure of about 26 mm Hg, both 3 and 12 months after the start of treatment. Patients in the olmesartan arm had decreases of 23 mm Hg and 21 mm Hg, respectively, at the two follow-up times. These between-group differences were statistically significant, Dr. Schmieder said.
Measurement of LV mass index using MRI scans showed an average reduction of LV mass index, compared with baseline of 6.4 g/m2 and 6.8 g/m2 after 3 and 12 months of treatment with sacubitril plus valsartan, and average reductions from baseline of 2.3 g/m2 and 3.5 g/m2 at the two follow-up examinations for patients treated with olmesartan. These statistically significant differences remained after adjustment for degree of blood pressure reduction at 3 and 12 months.
Additional measurements showed no between-group differences in aortic distensibility, but central pulse pressure also showed a significantly greater reduction with sacubitril plus valsartan, compared with olmesartan.
The trial was investigator initiated and received funding from Novartis. Dr. Schmieder has received honoraria from Novartis and also from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, and Servier.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
This study produced very interesting and convincing data. The results suggested that treating hypertension with sacubitril plus valsartan produced a significant, incremental improvement in left ventricular mass beyond the formulation’s blood pressure effect. This could potentially have importance when treating patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.
Olmesartan was a fair comparator to use. It arguably is the most potent angiotensin receptor blocker for reducing blood pressure. However, in routine practice we generally combine an angiotensin receptor blocker with a diuretic to get maximum blood pressure lowering. In addition, it is not new to show that blood pressure lowering reduces left ventricular size.
These data are too limited and the cost for prescribing sacubitril plus valsartan is so high, compared with most other antihypertensive drugs, that I would like to see additional study results documenting this effect before I’d be willing to prescribe sacubitril plus valsartan to patients with hypertension but no heart failure.
Dan J. Fintel, MD , a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, made these comments in an interview. He has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer.
This study produced very interesting and convincing data. The results suggested that treating hypertension with sacubitril plus valsartan produced a significant, incremental improvement in left ventricular mass beyond the formulation’s blood pressure effect. This could potentially have importance when treating patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.
Olmesartan was a fair comparator to use. It arguably is the most potent angiotensin receptor blocker for reducing blood pressure. However, in routine practice we generally combine an angiotensin receptor blocker with a diuretic to get maximum blood pressure lowering. In addition, it is not new to show that blood pressure lowering reduces left ventricular size.
These data are too limited and the cost for prescribing sacubitril plus valsartan is so high, compared with most other antihypertensive drugs, that I would like to see additional study results documenting this effect before I’d be willing to prescribe sacubitril plus valsartan to patients with hypertension but no heart failure.
Dan J. Fintel, MD , a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, made these comments in an interview. He has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer.
This study produced very interesting and convincing data. The results suggested that treating hypertension with sacubitril plus valsartan produced a significant, incremental improvement in left ventricular mass beyond the formulation’s blood pressure effect. This could potentially have importance when treating patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.
Olmesartan was a fair comparator to use. It arguably is the most potent angiotensin receptor blocker for reducing blood pressure. However, in routine practice we generally combine an angiotensin receptor blocker with a diuretic to get maximum blood pressure lowering. In addition, it is not new to show that blood pressure lowering reduces left ventricular size.
These data are too limited and the cost for prescribing sacubitril plus valsartan is so high, compared with most other antihypertensive drugs, that I would like to see additional study results documenting this effect before I’d be willing to prescribe sacubitril plus valsartan to patients with hypertension but no heart failure.
Dan J. Fintel, MD , a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, made these comments in an interview. He has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer.
NEW ORLEANS – Hypertensive patients without heart failure treated with the heart failure formulation sacubitril plus valsartan had a significantly greater drop in their left ventricular mass than did patients treated with olmesartan in a randomized trial with 114 patients.
Treatment with sacubitril plus valsartan for both 3 and 12 months led to roughly twice as much reduction in left ventricular (LV) mass as did treatment with olmesartan, and this difference persisted after adjustment for between-group differences in blood pressure reduction, Roland E. Schmieder, MD, reported at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.
During clinical development of sacubitril plus valsartan (Entresto), the company that owns this compound, Novartis, ran a few small studies using the formulation to treat hypertension, but eventually those studies stopped, he said in an interview. “I hope this pushes development of other neprilysin inhibitor formulations for their blood pressure effects. I think this finding helps us understand why sacubitril plus valsartan was so effective for treating heart failure.” (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:933-1004.)
The study enrolled patients with mild or moderate hypertension; the average blood pressure of enrolled patients was 155/92 mm Hg. They averaged 60 years of age, two-thirds were men, and their average LV mass index at baseline was 72 g/m2. The study excluded patients with heart failure. Patients randomized to receive sacubitril plus valsartan began on a dose of 200 mg/day, and after 2 weeks this rose to 400 mg/day, the maximum recommended dosage in the labeling. Patients randomized to olmesartan began on 20 mg/day, and after 2 weeks their dosage increased to 40 mg/day. Patients in both arms were also eligible to receive amlodipine for additional blood pressure lowering if deemed necessary by the treating physician.
The sacubitril plus valsartan group patients had an average cut in systolic blood pressure of about 26 mm Hg, both 3 and 12 months after the start of treatment. Patients in the olmesartan arm had decreases of 23 mm Hg and 21 mm Hg, respectively, at the two follow-up times. These between-group differences were statistically significant, Dr. Schmieder said.
Measurement of LV mass index using MRI scans showed an average reduction of LV mass index, compared with baseline of 6.4 g/m2 and 6.8 g/m2 after 3 and 12 months of treatment with sacubitril plus valsartan, and average reductions from baseline of 2.3 g/m2 and 3.5 g/m2 at the two follow-up examinations for patients treated with olmesartan. These statistically significant differences remained after adjustment for degree of blood pressure reduction at 3 and 12 months.
Additional measurements showed no between-group differences in aortic distensibility, but central pulse pressure also showed a significantly greater reduction with sacubitril plus valsartan, compared with olmesartan.
The trial was investigator initiated and received funding from Novartis. Dr. Schmieder has received honoraria from Novartis and also from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, and Servier.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
NEW ORLEANS – Hypertensive patients without heart failure treated with the heart failure formulation sacubitril plus valsartan had a significantly greater drop in their left ventricular mass than did patients treated with olmesartan in a randomized trial with 114 patients.
Treatment with sacubitril plus valsartan for both 3 and 12 months led to roughly twice as much reduction in left ventricular (LV) mass as did treatment with olmesartan, and this difference persisted after adjustment for between-group differences in blood pressure reduction, Roland E. Schmieder, MD, reported at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.
During clinical development of sacubitril plus valsartan (Entresto), the company that owns this compound, Novartis, ran a few small studies using the formulation to treat hypertension, but eventually those studies stopped, he said in an interview. “I hope this pushes development of other neprilysin inhibitor formulations for their blood pressure effects. I think this finding helps us understand why sacubitril plus valsartan was so effective for treating heart failure.” (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:933-1004.)
The study enrolled patients with mild or moderate hypertension; the average blood pressure of enrolled patients was 155/92 mm Hg. They averaged 60 years of age, two-thirds were men, and their average LV mass index at baseline was 72 g/m2. The study excluded patients with heart failure. Patients randomized to receive sacubitril plus valsartan began on a dose of 200 mg/day, and after 2 weeks this rose to 400 mg/day, the maximum recommended dosage in the labeling. Patients randomized to olmesartan began on 20 mg/day, and after 2 weeks their dosage increased to 40 mg/day. Patients in both arms were also eligible to receive amlodipine for additional blood pressure lowering if deemed necessary by the treating physician.
The sacubitril plus valsartan group patients had an average cut in systolic blood pressure of about 26 mm Hg, both 3 and 12 months after the start of treatment. Patients in the olmesartan arm had decreases of 23 mm Hg and 21 mm Hg, respectively, at the two follow-up times. These between-group differences were statistically significant, Dr. Schmieder said.
Measurement of LV mass index using MRI scans showed an average reduction of LV mass index, compared with baseline of 6.4 g/m2 and 6.8 g/m2 after 3 and 12 months of treatment with sacubitril plus valsartan, and average reductions from baseline of 2.3 g/m2 and 3.5 g/m2 at the two follow-up examinations for patients treated with olmesartan. These statistically significant differences remained after adjustment for degree of blood pressure reduction at 3 and 12 months.
Additional measurements showed no between-group differences in aortic distensibility, but central pulse pressure also showed a significantly greater reduction with sacubitril plus valsartan, compared with olmesartan.
The trial was investigator initiated and received funding from Novartis. Dr. Schmieder has received honoraria from Novartis and also from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, and Servier.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point: .
Major finding: After 1 year, average left ventricular mass index fell 6.8 g/m2 from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan and 3.5 g/m2 with olmesartan.
Data source: A multicenter, randomized trial with 114 patients with mild or moderate hypertension.
Disclosures: The trial was investigator initiated and received funding from Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril plus valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Schmieder has received honoraria from Novartis and also from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, and Servier.
VIDEO: Improved QOL an added benefit of pembrolizumab for NSCLC patients
VIENNA – Patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer with high levels of PD-L1 who received first-line pembrolizumab treatment had clinically meaningful improvement in their quality of life, compared with patients randomized to chemotherapy, in a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the drug’s pivotal trial.
This boost in quality of life as well as other measures of health status add to the pivotal trial’s primary finding of significantly increased progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy, as well as previously-reported secondary findings of superior overall survival, objective response rate, and safety with pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375[19]:1823-33), Julie R. Brahmer, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
The primary endpoint of the Study of Pembrolizumab Compared to Platinum-Based Chemotherapies in Participants With Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (KEYNOTE-024) showed an average 4.3-month increase in progression-free survival with pembrolizumab immunotherapy, compared with a standard chemotherapy regimen.
Improved quality of life on top of improved efficacy and safety is an important added benefit from pembrolizumab that should further spur its widespread adoption as first-line treatment for approved patients, Dr. Brahmer said in a video interview.
“When you talk about improving efficacy by months, patients and physicians want to also see improved quality of life,” said Dr. Brahmer, director of thoracic oncology at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore. “If symptoms are not improved or there are a ton of side effects with the treatment then use might be low.”
Based on its performance in KEYNOTE-024, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) received Food and Drug Administration approval on Oct. 24, 2016, as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer that has a tumor proportion score of at least 50% for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Pembrolizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and blocks PD-1, the immune-cell receptor that tumor-cell PD-L1 binds to make immune cells less active. Other new immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs that act by blocking PD-1 or PD-L1 have shown similar quality of life benefits, she noted.
Routine availability of pembrolizumab as initial treatment for patients who have tumors with this level of PD-L1 expression (and also have no EGFR or ALK genomic aberrations) is shifting practice, Dr. Brahmer said.
“It’s catching on. The limitation right now is making sure patients get tested” for their PD-L1 tumor proportion score at the time they are first diagnosed. “Medical oncologists need to educate pathologists that we need this testing automatically, upfront. It’s not there yet,” she said.
Patients also are enthused. “There is a lot of chemo-exhaustion among patients. They are looking for something different, and something that uses their immune system makes sense.” But only about one quarter of patients have tumors with this level of PD-L1 expression; the others must start chemotherapy first before trying immunotherapy, unless they have an EGFR mutation. Out-of-pocket cost for pembrolizumab is also a major issues for many patients, she said.
KEYNOTE-024 randomized 305 patients at 102 international sites and followed patients for a median of 11 months. Dr. Brahmer and her associates made two primary analyses of patient-reported outcomes. One was measurement of global health status at 15 weeks after the start of treatment using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire designed to assess quality of life. Weighted averaging of the EORTC QCQ-C30 scores showed a mean improvement of 7.8 points (P = .002) in the pembrolizumab patients compared with the chemotherapy patients, a difference Dr. Brahmer called “clinically meaningful” as well as statistically significant.
A second analysis of patient-reported outcomes used a second EORTC instrument, the QLC-LC13, which combines assessment of cough, chest pain, and dyspnea. Treatment with pembrolizumab significantly reduced the time to deterioration as measured by this questionnaire by a relative 34%, (P = .029).
A third analysis looked at 15 individual function or symptom domains that make up the QLQ-C30. In general, these showed more improvements with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy. One notable subcategory was fatigue, which showed significant improvement with pembrolizumab compared with a small worsening with chemotherapy.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
This is a very nice analysis using a well-validated group of instruments to assess quality of life. The researchers also achieved a high level of compliance, with 79%-85% of patients completing the quality-of life questionnaire at 15 weeks, when the primary measure of health status occurred.
The mean difference of the weighted global health status score of 7.8 points between the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy patients was a little less than a minimally important difference, but in the context of a randomized, controlled trial this difference probably tells us that there is health status improvement in the pembrolizumab patients. In addition, the individual symptom and function domains showed that in general pembrolizumab performed better than chemotherapy.
Michael Boyer, MD , is professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and a thoracic oncologist and chief clinical officer of the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney. He has received research support from Merck and from Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Clovis. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.
This is a very nice analysis using a well-validated group of instruments to assess quality of life. The researchers also achieved a high level of compliance, with 79%-85% of patients completing the quality-of life questionnaire at 15 weeks, when the primary measure of health status occurred.
The mean difference of the weighted global health status score of 7.8 points between the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy patients was a little less than a minimally important difference, but in the context of a randomized, controlled trial this difference probably tells us that there is health status improvement in the pembrolizumab patients. In addition, the individual symptom and function domains showed that in general pembrolizumab performed better than chemotherapy.
Michael Boyer, MD , is professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and a thoracic oncologist and chief clinical officer of the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney. He has received research support from Merck and from Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Clovis. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.
This is a very nice analysis using a well-validated group of instruments to assess quality of life. The researchers also achieved a high level of compliance, with 79%-85% of patients completing the quality-of life questionnaire at 15 weeks, when the primary measure of health status occurred.
The mean difference of the weighted global health status score of 7.8 points between the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy patients was a little less than a minimally important difference, but in the context of a randomized, controlled trial this difference probably tells us that there is health status improvement in the pembrolizumab patients. In addition, the individual symptom and function domains showed that in general pembrolizumab performed better than chemotherapy.
Michael Boyer, MD , is professor of medicine at the University of Sydney and a thoracic oncologist and chief clinical officer of the Chris O’Brien Lifehouse in Sydney. He has received research support from Merck and from Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Clovis. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report.
VIENNA – Patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer with high levels of PD-L1 who received first-line pembrolizumab treatment had clinically meaningful improvement in their quality of life, compared with patients randomized to chemotherapy, in a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the drug’s pivotal trial.
This boost in quality of life as well as other measures of health status add to the pivotal trial’s primary finding of significantly increased progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy, as well as previously-reported secondary findings of superior overall survival, objective response rate, and safety with pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375[19]:1823-33), Julie R. Brahmer, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
The primary endpoint of the Study of Pembrolizumab Compared to Platinum-Based Chemotherapies in Participants With Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (KEYNOTE-024) showed an average 4.3-month increase in progression-free survival with pembrolizumab immunotherapy, compared with a standard chemotherapy regimen.
Improved quality of life on top of improved efficacy and safety is an important added benefit from pembrolizumab that should further spur its widespread adoption as first-line treatment for approved patients, Dr. Brahmer said in a video interview.
“When you talk about improving efficacy by months, patients and physicians want to also see improved quality of life,” said Dr. Brahmer, director of thoracic oncology at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore. “If symptoms are not improved or there are a ton of side effects with the treatment then use might be low.”
Based on its performance in KEYNOTE-024, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) received Food and Drug Administration approval on Oct. 24, 2016, as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer that has a tumor proportion score of at least 50% for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Pembrolizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and blocks PD-1, the immune-cell receptor that tumor-cell PD-L1 binds to make immune cells less active. Other new immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs that act by blocking PD-1 or PD-L1 have shown similar quality of life benefits, she noted.
Routine availability of pembrolizumab as initial treatment for patients who have tumors with this level of PD-L1 expression (and also have no EGFR or ALK genomic aberrations) is shifting practice, Dr. Brahmer said.
“It’s catching on. The limitation right now is making sure patients get tested” for their PD-L1 tumor proportion score at the time they are first diagnosed. “Medical oncologists need to educate pathologists that we need this testing automatically, upfront. It’s not there yet,” she said.
Patients also are enthused. “There is a lot of chemo-exhaustion among patients. They are looking for something different, and something that uses their immune system makes sense.” But only about one quarter of patients have tumors with this level of PD-L1 expression; the others must start chemotherapy first before trying immunotherapy, unless they have an EGFR mutation. Out-of-pocket cost for pembrolizumab is also a major issues for many patients, she said.
KEYNOTE-024 randomized 305 patients at 102 international sites and followed patients for a median of 11 months. Dr. Brahmer and her associates made two primary analyses of patient-reported outcomes. One was measurement of global health status at 15 weeks after the start of treatment using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire designed to assess quality of life. Weighted averaging of the EORTC QCQ-C30 scores showed a mean improvement of 7.8 points (P = .002) in the pembrolizumab patients compared with the chemotherapy patients, a difference Dr. Brahmer called “clinically meaningful” as well as statistically significant.
A second analysis of patient-reported outcomes used a second EORTC instrument, the QLC-LC13, which combines assessment of cough, chest pain, and dyspnea. Treatment with pembrolizumab significantly reduced the time to deterioration as measured by this questionnaire by a relative 34%, (P = .029).
A third analysis looked at 15 individual function or symptom domains that make up the QLQ-C30. In general, these showed more improvements with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy. One notable subcategory was fatigue, which showed significant improvement with pembrolizumab compared with a small worsening with chemotherapy.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
VIENNA – Patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer with high levels of PD-L1 who received first-line pembrolizumab treatment had clinically meaningful improvement in their quality of life, compared with patients randomized to chemotherapy, in a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the drug’s pivotal trial.
This boost in quality of life as well as other measures of health status add to the pivotal trial’s primary finding of significantly increased progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy, as well as previously-reported secondary findings of superior overall survival, objective response rate, and safety with pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375[19]:1823-33), Julie R. Brahmer, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
The primary endpoint of the Study of Pembrolizumab Compared to Platinum-Based Chemotherapies in Participants With Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (KEYNOTE-024) showed an average 4.3-month increase in progression-free survival with pembrolizumab immunotherapy, compared with a standard chemotherapy regimen.
Improved quality of life on top of improved efficacy and safety is an important added benefit from pembrolizumab that should further spur its widespread adoption as first-line treatment for approved patients, Dr. Brahmer said in a video interview.
“When you talk about improving efficacy by months, patients and physicians want to also see improved quality of life,” said Dr. Brahmer, director of thoracic oncology at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore. “If symptoms are not improved or there are a ton of side effects with the treatment then use might be low.”
Based on its performance in KEYNOTE-024, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) received Food and Drug Administration approval on Oct. 24, 2016, as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer that has a tumor proportion score of at least 50% for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Pembrolizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and blocks PD-1, the immune-cell receptor that tumor-cell PD-L1 binds to make immune cells less active. Other new immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs that act by blocking PD-1 or PD-L1 have shown similar quality of life benefits, she noted.
Routine availability of pembrolizumab as initial treatment for patients who have tumors with this level of PD-L1 expression (and also have no EGFR or ALK genomic aberrations) is shifting practice, Dr. Brahmer said.
“It’s catching on. The limitation right now is making sure patients get tested” for their PD-L1 tumor proportion score at the time they are first diagnosed. “Medical oncologists need to educate pathologists that we need this testing automatically, upfront. It’s not there yet,” she said.
Patients also are enthused. “There is a lot of chemo-exhaustion among patients. They are looking for something different, and something that uses their immune system makes sense.” But only about one quarter of patients have tumors with this level of PD-L1 expression; the others must start chemotherapy first before trying immunotherapy, unless they have an EGFR mutation. Out-of-pocket cost for pembrolizumab is also a major issues for many patients, she said.
KEYNOTE-024 randomized 305 patients at 102 international sites and followed patients for a median of 11 months. Dr. Brahmer and her associates made two primary analyses of patient-reported outcomes. One was measurement of global health status at 15 weeks after the start of treatment using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire designed to assess quality of life. Weighted averaging of the EORTC QCQ-C30 scores showed a mean improvement of 7.8 points (P = .002) in the pembrolizumab patients compared with the chemotherapy patients, a difference Dr. Brahmer called “clinically meaningful” as well as statistically significant.
A second analysis of patient-reported outcomes used a second EORTC instrument, the QLC-LC13, which combines assessment of cough, chest pain, and dyspnea. Treatment with pembrolizumab significantly reduced the time to deterioration as measured by this questionnaire by a relative 34%, (P = .029).
A third analysis looked at 15 individual function or symptom domains that make up the QLQ-C30. In general, these showed more improvements with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy. One notable subcategory was fatigue, which showed significant improvement with pembrolizumab compared with a small worsening with chemotherapy.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT WCLC 2016
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The weighted average change from baseline in QLQ-C30 was 7.8 points higher in pembrolizumab patients compared with chemotherapy patients.
Data source: KEYNOTE-024, a multicenter, international randomized trial comprising 305 patients.
Disclosures: Merck, which markets pembrolizumab (Keytruda), sponsored KEYNOTE-024. Dr. Brahmer has served on an advisory board for Merck.
TAVR concerns hinder use in younger, lower-risk patients
NEW ORLEANS – Despite increasing use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate risk for surgery, the procedure is meeting selected resistance because of ongoing concerns about the procedure’s limitations.
As more data emerge from randomized trials and registries, cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons see the choice between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients at intermediate surgical risk as something to individualize based on factors that include age, the type of TAVR access possible (transfemoral or an alternative route), and of course, patient preference. An added variable is the constant stream of new data that keeps TAVR in flux, with improved and smaller valves and delivery systems coming onto the market that eclipse the experience and lessons learned from older TAVR systems.
In intermediate-risk patients, usually defined as those with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) mortality risk score of 4%-8%, “I think you can go either way,” said Frank W. Sellke, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“If a patient is 90 years old and can’t expect to live more than a couple of years, you use TAVR; but if the patient is 55 years old and can expect to live 30 years, I would recommend SAVR,” said Dr. Sellke, professor and chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Brown University in Providence, R.I.
He rattled off four things about TAVR that keep it from being for everyone: periprocedural vascular complications, higher rates of paravalvular leak than with surgery, leaflet thrombosis (a phenomenon with unclear clinical consequences), and undocumented long-term durability.
Dr. Sellke made these comments while discussing the report at the meeting on registry data collected from nearly 6,000 intermediate-risk patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR in Germany during January 2011 through December 2013 and assembled in the German Aortic Valve Registry. During that 3-year period, German TAVR patients could receive either the SAPIEN XT valve or the CoreValve, two TAVR systems that now have been superseded in both Europe and the United States by next-generation systems, SAPIEN 3 and Evolut R.
Limitations of a transthoracic approach
Another factor limiting TAVR is the endovascular approach. The best TAVR results by far have come from using a transfemoral approach for endovascular valve placement, but experts estimate that today at least 10% of patients considered for TAVR have a vascular anatomy that makes the transfemoral TAVR impossible. In the past, when such patients underwent TAVR, it was via either a transapical or transaortic approach (collectively called transthoracic), although additional endovascular entry sites are now being tested.
The limitations of transthoracic TAVR were underscored by results from a prespecified quality-of-life analysis done as part of the PARTNER 2 trial that compared the SAPIEN XT system with SAVR in intermediate-risk patients (N Engl J Med. 2016 April 27;374[17]:1609-20).
In contrast, the patients in the study who had their TAVR done by a transthoracic route had a statistically nonsignificant incremental gain in their KCCQ score, compared with randomized SAVR patients, after 1 month, and their incremental rise in KCCQ score was not clinically meaningful.
The investigators measured KCCQ scores at both 1 and 2 years after treatment, and they were similar regardless of whether patients had undergone TAVR or SAVR in both the transfemoral and transthoracic subgroups. All the quality-of-life benefit from TAVR compared with SAVR occurred only during the first month (and possibly for a few additional months beyond that) and only in TAVR patients treated by the transfemoral route. Dr. Cohen stressed that the SAVR patients in both the transfemoral and transthoracic subgroups had very similar outcomes, showing that patient differences could not explain why the transfemoral patients received a much greater incremental benefit, compared with the SAVR patients, at 1 month than did the transthoracic patients.
“A transthoracic TAVR approach may not be preferable to SAVR, at least in the short to intermediate term,” said Dr. Cohen. “There is no benefit from TAVR, compared with SAVR, if you can’t do it transfemorally, although emerging evidence has suggested that other nontransfemoral approaches that stay out of the chest may provide benefit similar to transfemoral TAVR. The message is, stay out of the chest,” he concluded.
Concerns about durability
The durability of TAVR valves is another concern that has recently been influencing patients as they decide between TAVR and SAVR, said Dr. Smith. “A lot of patients don’t want TAVR because of their concerns about its durability.” These patients usually cite evidence reported in May 2016 at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions in Paris by Danny Dvir, MD, on longer-term follow-up of 378 patients who underwent TAVR at either of two pioneering centers. A retrospective review suggested a valve degeneration rate of about 50% after 8 years, Dr. Dvir reported.
This report “has gotten a lot of penetration over the Internet, and a lot of patients don’t like the uncertainty” about TAVR durability that this report produced. “A lot of the time now, patients come in with a fixed idea of whether they want TAVR or SAVR,” Dr. Smith said.
Dr. Smith essentially agreed with Dr. Sellke on the current role for TAVR relative to SAVR in lower-risk patients.
“If the patient is clearly intermediate risk, with an STS mortality risk of more than 6% and is at least 80 years old, then they’ll have TAVR 99% of the time. But if it’s a 75 year old with an STS score of 3.2% and otherwise healthy, the best choice is not as clear.”
Another cardiothoracic surgeon with lots of TAVR experience, Michael J. Reardon, MD, has much more enthusiasm for TAVR. “In my practice, I use TAVR exclusively in patients at least 80 years old. I don‘t care how healthy they look,” said Dr. Reardon, professor of cardiovascular surgery at Houston Methodist. He acknowledged that broader use of TAVR for intermediate-risk patients is getting push back from other cardiothoracic surgeons.
Dr. Sellke is one such surgeon, and he called uncertain TAVR valve durability the deciding factor. “We need longer-term data on [TAVR] valve longevity before we routinely put them into intermediate- or low-risk patients,” he said during a panel discussion at the meeting.
Dr. Reardon highlighted that newer TAVR systems have been reducing problems such as paravalvular leaks and the need for pacemakers following placement of self-expanding TAVR valves. Despite these technical improvements, the final frontier for TAVR for lower-risk patients is valve durability, Dr. Reardon said in an interview.
“I’m convinced the durability is there, and that any 80-year-old patient who is anatomically suited for transfemoral TAVR should get it no matter now healthy they look. If their likely survival is 15 years or less, then they are reasonable candidates for TAVR.”
Dr. Sellke had no relevant disclosures. PARTNER 2 was funded by Edwards, the company that markets Sapient TAVR systems. Dr. Cohen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Smith has been an investigator in the PARTNER studies. Dr. Reardon has been a consultant to Medtronic, the company that markets the CoreValve and Evolut R TAVR systems.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
NEW ORLEANS – Despite increasing use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate risk for surgery, the procedure is meeting selected resistance because of ongoing concerns about the procedure’s limitations.
As more data emerge from randomized trials and registries, cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons see the choice between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients at intermediate surgical risk as something to individualize based on factors that include age, the type of TAVR access possible (transfemoral or an alternative route), and of course, patient preference. An added variable is the constant stream of new data that keeps TAVR in flux, with improved and smaller valves and delivery systems coming onto the market that eclipse the experience and lessons learned from older TAVR systems.
In intermediate-risk patients, usually defined as those with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) mortality risk score of 4%-8%, “I think you can go either way,” said Frank W. Sellke, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“If a patient is 90 years old and can’t expect to live more than a couple of years, you use TAVR; but if the patient is 55 years old and can expect to live 30 years, I would recommend SAVR,” said Dr. Sellke, professor and chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Brown University in Providence, R.I.
He rattled off four things about TAVR that keep it from being for everyone: periprocedural vascular complications, higher rates of paravalvular leak than with surgery, leaflet thrombosis (a phenomenon with unclear clinical consequences), and undocumented long-term durability.
Dr. Sellke made these comments while discussing the report at the meeting on registry data collected from nearly 6,000 intermediate-risk patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR in Germany during January 2011 through December 2013 and assembled in the German Aortic Valve Registry. During that 3-year period, German TAVR patients could receive either the SAPIEN XT valve or the CoreValve, two TAVR systems that now have been superseded in both Europe and the United States by next-generation systems, SAPIEN 3 and Evolut R.
Limitations of a transthoracic approach
Another factor limiting TAVR is the endovascular approach. The best TAVR results by far have come from using a transfemoral approach for endovascular valve placement, but experts estimate that today at least 10% of patients considered for TAVR have a vascular anatomy that makes the transfemoral TAVR impossible. In the past, when such patients underwent TAVR, it was via either a transapical or transaortic approach (collectively called transthoracic), although additional endovascular entry sites are now being tested.
The limitations of transthoracic TAVR were underscored by results from a prespecified quality-of-life analysis done as part of the PARTNER 2 trial that compared the SAPIEN XT system with SAVR in intermediate-risk patients (N Engl J Med. 2016 April 27;374[17]:1609-20).
In contrast, the patients in the study who had their TAVR done by a transthoracic route had a statistically nonsignificant incremental gain in their KCCQ score, compared with randomized SAVR patients, after 1 month, and their incremental rise in KCCQ score was not clinically meaningful.
The investigators measured KCCQ scores at both 1 and 2 years after treatment, and they were similar regardless of whether patients had undergone TAVR or SAVR in both the transfemoral and transthoracic subgroups. All the quality-of-life benefit from TAVR compared with SAVR occurred only during the first month (and possibly for a few additional months beyond that) and only in TAVR patients treated by the transfemoral route. Dr. Cohen stressed that the SAVR patients in both the transfemoral and transthoracic subgroups had very similar outcomes, showing that patient differences could not explain why the transfemoral patients received a much greater incremental benefit, compared with the SAVR patients, at 1 month than did the transthoracic patients.
“A transthoracic TAVR approach may not be preferable to SAVR, at least in the short to intermediate term,” said Dr. Cohen. “There is no benefit from TAVR, compared with SAVR, if you can’t do it transfemorally, although emerging evidence has suggested that other nontransfemoral approaches that stay out of the chest may provide benefit similar to transfemoral TAVR. The message is, stay out of the chest,” he concluded.
Concerns about durability
The durability of TAVR valves is another concern that has recently been influencing patients as they decide between TAVR and SAVR, said Dr. Smith. “A lot of patients don’t want TAVR because of their concerns about its durability.” These patients usually cite evidence reported in May 2016 at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions in Paris by Danny Dvir, MD, on longer-term follow-up of 378 patients who underwent TAVR at either of two pioneering centers. A retrospective review suggested a valve degeneration rate of about 50% after 8 years, Dr. Dvir reported.
This report “has gotten a lot of penetration over the Internet, and a lot of patients don’t like the uncertainty” about TAVR durability that this report produced. “A lot of the time now, patients come in with a fixed idea of whether they want TAVR or SAVR,” Dr. Smith said.
Dr. Smith essentially agreed with Dr. Sellke on the current role for TAVR relative to SAVR in lower-risk patients.
“If the patient is clearly intermediate risk, with an STS mortality risk of more than 6% and is at least 80 years old, then they’ll have TAVR 99% of the time. But if it’s a 75 year old with an STS score of 3.2% and otherwise healthy, the best choice is not as clear.”
Another cardiothoracic surgeon with lots of TAVR experience, Michael J. Reardon, MD, has much more enthusiasm for TAVR. “In my practice, I use TAVR exclusively in patients at least 80 years old. I don‘t care how healthy they look,” said Dr. Reardon, professor of cardiovascular surgery at Houston Methodist. He acknowledged that broader use of TAVR for intermediate-risk patients is getting push back from other cardiothoracic surgeons.
Dr. Sellke is one such surgeon, and he called uncertain TAVR valve durability the deciding factor. “We need longer-term data on [TAVR] valve longevity before we routinely put them into intermediate- or low-risk patients,” he said during a panel discussion at the meeting.
Dr. Reardon highlighted that newer TAVR systems have been reducing problems such as paravalvular leaks and the need for pacemakers following placement of self-expanding TAVR valves. Despite these technical improvements, the final frontier for TAVR for lower-risk patients is valve durability, Dr. Reardon said in an interview.
“I’m convinced the durability is there, and that any 80-year-old patient who is anatomically suited for transfemoral TAVR should get it no matter now healthy they look. If their likely survival is 15 years or less, then they are reasonable candidates for TAVR.”
Dr. Sellke had no relevant disclosures. PARTNER 2 was funded by Edwards, the company that markets Sapient TAVR systems. Dr. Cohen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Smith has been an investigator in the PARTNER studies. Dr. Reardon has been a consultant to Medtronic, the company that markets the CoreValve and Evolut R TAVR systems.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
NEW ORLEANS – Despite increasing use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate risk for surgery, the procedure is meeting selected resistance because of ongoing concerns about the procedure’s limitations.
As more data emerge from randomized trials and registries, cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons see the choice between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients at intermediate surgical risk as something to individualize based on factors that include age, the type of TAVR access possible (transfemoral or an alternative route), and of course, patient preference. An added variable is the constant stream of new data that keeps TAVR in flux, with improved and smaller valves and delivery systems coming onto the market that eclipse the experience and lessons learned from older TAVR systems.
In intermediate-risk patients, usually defined as those with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) mortality risk score of 4%-8%, “I think you can go either way,” said Frank W. Sellke, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“If a patient is 90 years old and can’t expect to live more than a couple of years, you use TAVR; but if the patient is 55 years old and can expect to live 30 years, I would recommend SAVR,” said Dr. Sellke, professor and chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Brown University in Providence, R.I.
He rattled off four things about TAVR that keep it from being for everyone: periprocedural vascular complications, higher rates of paravalvular leak than with surgery, leaflet thrombosis (a phenomenon with unclear clinical consequences), and undocumented long-term durability.
Dr. Sellke made these comments while discussing the report at the meeting on registry data collected from nearly 6,000 intermediate-risk patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR in Germany during January 2011 through December 2013 and assembled in the German Aortic Valve Registry. During that 3-year period, German TAVR patients could receive either the SAPIEN XT valve or the CoreValve, two TAVR systems that now have been superseded in both Europe and the United States by next-generation systems, SAPIEN 3 and Evolut R.
Limitations of a transthoracic approach
Another factor limiting TAVR is the endovascular approach. The best TAVR results by far have come from using a transfemoral approach for endovascular valve placement, but experts estimate that today at least 10% of patients considered for TAVR have a vascular anatomy that makes the transfemoral TAVR impossible. In the past, when such patients underwent TAVR, it was via either a transapical or transaortic approach (collectively called transthoracic), although additional endovascular entry sites are now being tested.
The limitations of transthoracic TAVR were underscored by results from a prespecified quality-of-life analysis done as part of the PARTNER 2 trial that compared the SAPIEN XT system with SAVR in intermediate-risk patients (N Engl J Med. 2016 April 27;374[17]:1609-20).
In contrast, the patients in the study who had their TAVR done by a transthoracic route had a statistically nonsignificant incremental gain in their KCCQ score, compared with randomized SAVR patients, after 1 month, and their incremental rise in KCCQ score was not clinically meaningful.
The investigators measured KCCQ scores at both 1 and 2 years after treatment, and they were similar regardless of whether patients had undergone TAVR or SAVR in both the transfemoral and transthoracic subgroups. All the quality-of-life benefit from TAVR compared with SAVR occurred only during the first month (and possibly for a few additional months beyond that) and only in TAVR patients treated by the transfemoral route. Dr. Cohen stressed that the SAVR patients in both the transfemoral and transthoracic subgroups had very similar outcomes, showing that patient differences could not explain why the transfemoral patients received a much greater incremental benefit, compared with the SAVR patients, at 1 month than did the transthoracic patients.
“A transthoracic TAVR approach may not be preferable to SAVR, at least in the short to intermediate term,” said Dr. Cohen. “There is no benefit from TAVR, compared with SAVR, if you can’t do it transfemorally, although emerging evidence has suggested that other nontransfemoral approaches that stay out of the chest may provide benefit similar to transfemoral TAVR. The message is, stay out of the chest,” he concluded.
Concerns about durability
The durability of TAVR valves is another concern that has recently been influencing patients as they decide between TAVR and SAVR, said Dr. Smith. “A lot of patients don’t want TAVR because of their concerns about its durability.” These patients usually cite evidence reported in May 2016 at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions in Paris by Danny Dvir, MD, on longer-term follow-up of 378 patients who underwent TAVR at either of two pioneering centers. A retrospective review suggested a valve degeneration rate of about 50% after 8 years, Dr. Dvir reported.
This report “has gotten a lot of penetration over the Internet, and a lot of patients don’t like the uncertainty” about TAVR durability that this report produced. “A lot of the time now, patients come in with a fixed idea of whether they want TAVR or SAVR,” Dr. Smith said.
Dr. Smith essentially agreed with Dr. Sellke on the current role for TAVR relative to SAVR in lower-risk patients.
“If the patient is clearly intermediate risk, with an STS mortality risk of more than 6% and is at least 80 years old, then they’ll have TAVR 99% of the time. But if it’s a 75 year old with an STS score of 3.2% and otherwise healthy, the best choice is not as clear.”
Another cardiothoracic surgeon with lots of TAVR experience, Michael J. Reardon, MD, has much more enthusiasm for TAVR. “In my practice, I use TAVR exclusively in patients at least 80 years old. I don‘t care how healthy they look,” said Dr. Reardon, professor of cardiovascular surgery at Houston Methodist. He acknowledged that broader use of TAVR for intermediate-risk patients is getting push back from other cardiothoracic surgeons.
Dr. Sellke is one such surgeon, and he called uncertain TAVR valve durability the deciding factor. “We need longer-term data on [TAVR] valve longevity before we routinely put them into intermediate- or low-risk patients,” he said during a panel discussion at the meeting.
Dr. Reardon highlighted that newer TAVR systems have been reducing problems such as paravalvular leaks and the need for pacemakers following placement of self-expanding TAVR valves. Despite these technical improvements, the final frontier for TAVR for lower-risk patients is valve durability, Dr. Reardon said in an interview.
“I’m convinced the durability is there, and that any 80-year-old patient who is anatomically suited for transfemoral TAVR should get it no matter now healthy they look. If their likely survival is 15 years or less, then they are reasonable candidates for TAVR.”
Dr. Sellke had no relevant disclosures. PARTNER 2 was funded by Edwards, the company that markets Sapient TAVR systems. Dr. Cohen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Smith has been an investigator in the PARTNER studies. Dr. Reardon has been a consultant to Medtronic, the company that markets the CoreValve and Evolut R TAVR systems.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
VIDEO: Pivotal results nail osimertinib’s role in NSCLC
VIENNA – Osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that received U.S. marketing approval in November 2015 as second-line treatment for selected patients with non–small-cell lung cancer based on phase II trial data, now has the pivotal-trial results that completely justify that action.
During a median follow-up of just over 8 months, patients who had progressed on their first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and carried the T790M mutation and switched to osimertinib (Tagrisso) had “overwhelmingly” better response rates and progression-free survival, compared with patients put on standard-of-care chemotherapy in a multicenter randomized trial involving 419 patients, Vassiliki A. Papadimitrakopoulou, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.
The AZD9291 Versus Platinum-Based Doublet-Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (AURA3) trial enrolled 419 patients at 126 international sites during 2014 and 2015. The trial’s primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which occurred after a median of 10.1 months with osimertinib and 4.4 months with standard chemotherapy, a statistically significant 70% relative risk reduction (P less than .001) in the hazard for death or progressive disease. The drug was as effective for patients with central nervous system metastases as it was for the other patients, which Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou attributed to osimertinib’s good penetration across the blood-brain barrier. The drug’s overall performance in AURA3 was completely consistent with the results of earlier studies that led to its U.S. approval.
Despite that approval, routine testing for T790M mutations and routine prescribing of osimertinib to positive patients “has not fully penetrated U.S. practice,” Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou said, but she hoped that these new confirmatory data will now firmly establish it as standard of care for the tested population.
Osimertinib is now under testing as first-line TKI treatment for EGFR-positive NSCLC regardless of the tumor’s T790M status. It’s going head to head with two first-generation EGFR TKIs, gefitinib and erlotinib, in the FLAURA trial, which should have reportable results in 2017. “We are very encouraged by the AURA3 data that osimertinib could beat the first-generation TKIs” for first-line treatment, she said.
AURA3 was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets osimertinib (Tagrisso). Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou is a consultant to, and has received research support from, AstraZeneca and several other companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Osimertinib overcomes the T790M mutation, which is the cause of about half of the non–small-cell lung cancers that are EGFR positive and develop resistance to a first- or-second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The AURA3 results officially make osimertinib the standard of care for these patients.
Osimertinib’s performance in AURA3 was consistent with what it did in the earlier studies, producing an overall response rate of about 60%-70% and extending progression-free survival out to a median of 10-11 months.
Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, is professor of thoracic surgery at Kindai University in Osaka-Sayama, Japan. He has been a consultant to, and has received honoraria and research support from, AstraZeneca and several other companies. He was principal investigator for AURA2, one of the phase II studies of osimertinib. He made these comments as designated discussant for AURA3.
Osimertinib overcomes the T790M mutation, which is the cause of about half of the non–small-cell lung cancers that are EGFR positive and develop resistance to a first- or-second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The AURA3 results officially make osimertinib the standard of care for these patients.
Osimertinib’s performance in AURA3 was consistent with what it did in the earlier studies, producing an overall response rate of about 60%-70% and extending progression-free survival out to a median of 10-11 months.
Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, is professor of thoracic surgery at Kindai University in Osaka-Sayama, Japan. He has been a consultant to, and has received honoraria and research support from, AstraZeneca and several other companies. He was principal investigator for AURA2, one of the phase II studies of osimertinib. He made these comments as designated discussant for AURA3.
Osimertinib overcomes the T790M mutation, which is the cause of about half of the non–small-cell lung cancers that are EGFR positive and develop resistance to a first- or-second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The AURA3 results officially make osimertinib the standard of care for these patients.
Osimertinib’s performance in AURA3 was consistent with what it did in the earlier studies, producing an overall response rate of about 60%-70% and extending progression-free survival out to a median of 10-11 months.
Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, is professor of thoracic surgery at Kindai University in Osaka-Sayama, Japan. He has been a consultant to, and has received honoraria and research support from, AstraZeneca and several other companies. He was principal investigator for AURA2, one of the phase II studies of osimertinib. He made these comments as designated discussant for AURA3.
VIENNA – Osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that received U.S. marketing approval in November 2015 as second-line treatment for selected patients with non–small-cell lung cancer based on phase II trial data, now has the pivotal-trial results that completely justify that action.
During a median follow-up of just over 8 months, patients who had progressed on their first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and carried the T790M mutation and switched to osimertinib (Tagrisso) had “overwhelmingly” better response rates and progression-free survival, compared with patients put on standard-of-care chemotherapy in a multicenter randomized trial involving 419 patients, Vassiliki A. Papadimitrakopoulou, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.
The AZD9291 Versus Platinum-Based Doublet-Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (AURA3) trial enrolled 419 patients at 126 international sites during 2014 and 2015. The trial’s primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which occurred after a median of 10.1 months with osimertinib and 4.4 months with standard chemotherapy, a statistically significant 70% relative risk reduction (P less than .001) in the hazard for death or progressive disease. The drug was as effective for patients with central nervous system metastases as it was for the other patients, which Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou attributed to osimertinib’s good penetration across the blood-brain barrier. The drug’s overall performance in AURA3 was completely consistent with the results of earlier studies that led to its U.S. approval.
Despite that approval, routine testing for T790M mutations and routine prescribing of osimertinib to positive patients “has not fully penetrated U.S. practice,” Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou said, but she hoped that these new confirmatory data will now firmly establish it as standard of care for the tested population.
Osimertinib is now under testing as first-line TKI treatment for EGFR-positive NSCLC regardless of the tumor’s T790M status. It’s going head to head with two first-generation EGFR TKIs, gefitinib and erlotinib, in the FLAURA trial, which should have reportable results in 2017. “We are very encouraged by the AURA3 data that osimertinib could beat the first-generation TKIs” for first-line treatment, she said.
AURA3 was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets osimertinib (Tagrisso). Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou is a consultant to, and has received research support from, AstraZeneca and several other companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
VIENNA – Osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that received U.S. marketing approval in November 2015 as second-line treatment for selected patients with non–small-cell lung cancer based on phase II trial data, now has the pivotal-trial results that completely justify that action.
During a median follow-up of just over 8 months, patients who had progressed on their first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and carried the T790M mutation and switched to osimertinib (Tagrisso) had “overwhelmingly” better response rates and progression-free survival, compared with patients put on standard-of-care chemotherapy in a multicenter randomized trial involving 419 patients, Vassiliki A. Papadimitrakopoulou, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.
The AZD9291 Versus Platinum-Based Doublet-Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (AURA3) trial enrolled 419 patients at 126 international sites during 2014 and 2015. The trial’s primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, which occurred after a median of 10.1 months with osimertinib and 4.4 months with standard chemotherapy, a statistically significant 70% relative risk reduction (P less than .001) in the hazard for death or progressive disease. The drug was as effective for patients with central nervous system metastases as it was for the other patients, which Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou attributed to osimertinib’s good penetration across the blood-brain barrier. The drug’s overall performance in AURA3 was completely consistent with the results of earlier studies that led to its U.S. approval.
Despite that approval, routine testing for T790M mutations and routine prescribing of osimertinib to positive patients “has not fully penetrated U.S. practice,” Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou said, but she hoped that these new confirmatory data will now firmly establish it as standard of care for the tested population.
Osimertinib is now under testing as first-line TKI treatment for EGFR-positive NSCLC regardless of the tumor’s T790M status. It’s going head to head with two first-generation EGFR TKIs, gefitinib and erlotinib, in the FLAURA trial, which should have reportable results in 2017. “We are very encouraged by the AURA3 data that osimertinib could beat the first-generation TKIs” for first-line treatment, she said.
AURA3 was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets osimertinib (Tagrisso). Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou is a consultant to, and has received research support from, AstraZeneca and several other companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Progression-free survival averaged 10.1 months with osimertinib and 4.4 months in patients on standard chemotherapy.
Data source: AURA3, which randomized 419 patients at 126 international centers.
Disclosures: AURA3 was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets osimertinib (Tagrisso). Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou is a consultant to, and has received research support from, AstraZeneca and several other companies.
Dementia prevalence increased in heart failure patients
NEW ORLEANS – Elderly patients with heart failure had a significantly increased prevalence of both dementia and mild cognitive impairment, compared with similar people without heart failure, in an analysis of data collected from more than 6,000 U.S. residents enrolled in a long-term observational study.
Patients diagnosed with either heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction had an 89% increased prevalence of dementia and a 41% increased prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), compared with people from the same cohort who did not develop heart failure, in an analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables, Lucy S. Witt, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. She speculated that the link between heart failure and dementia and MCI might result from impaired cerebral perfusion in heart failure patients or from effects from heart failure medications.
The analysis used data collected for the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, which began in 1987 and enrolled a randomly selected representative cohort of nearly 16,000 women and men aged 45-64 years old who resided in any of four U.S. communities. She specifically focused on the data collected from 6,431 of the participants who returned for a fifth follow-up examination during 2011-2013, including 5,490 people without heart failure, whose average age was 76 years, and 941 participants with heart failure, whose average age was 78 years.
Dementia prevalence at the fifth follow-up visit occurred at an adjusted rate of 5.6% among those without heart failure and 7.0% in those with heart failure. The examinations also found MCI in an adjusted 21.5% of those without heart failure and in 26.2% of those with heart failure, Dr. Witt reported. Adjustments included age, sex, location, education, hypertension, diabetes, depression, alcohol and tobacco use, cerebral vascular disease, marital status, and several other factors.
The relative risk for having dementia among the heart failure patients was roughly similar, regardless of whether ARIC participants with heart failure had a reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, she said.
ARIC is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Witt had no disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
NEW ORLEANS – Elderly patients with heart failure had a significantly increased prevalence of both dementia and mild cognitive impairment, compared with similar people without heart failure, in an analysis of data collected from more than 6,000 U.S. residents enrolled in a long-term observational study.
Patients diagnosed with either heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction had an 89% increased prevalence of dementia and a 41% increased prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), compared with people from the same cohort who did not develop heart failure, in an analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables, Lucy S. Witt, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. She speculated that the link between heart failure and dementia and MCI might result from impaired cerebral perfusion in heart failure patients or from effects from heart failure medications.
The analysis used data collected for the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, which began in 1987 and enrolled a randomly selected representative cohort of nearly 16,000 women and men aged 45-64 years old who resided in any of four U.S. communities. She specifically focused on the data collected from 6,431 of the participants who returned for a fifth follow-up examination during 2011-2013, including 5,490 people without heart failure, whose average age was 76 years, and 941 participants with heart failure, whose average age was 78 years.
Dementia prevalence at the fifth follow-up visit occurred at an adjusted rate of 5.6% among those without heart failure and 7.0% in those with heart failure. The examinations also found MCI in an adjusted 21.5% of those without heart failure and in 26.2% of those with heart failure, Dr. Witt reported. Adjustments included age, sex, location, education, hypertension, diabetes, depression, alcohol and tobacco use, cerebral vascular disease, marital status, and several other factors.
The relative risk for having dementia among the heart failure patients was roughly similar, regardless of whether ARIC participants with heart failure had a reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, she said.
ARIC is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Witt had no disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
NEW ORLEANS – Elderly patients with heart failure had a significantly increased prevalence of both dementia and mild cognitive impairment, compared with similar people without heart failure, in an analysis of data collected from more than 6,000 U.S. residents enrolled in a long-term observational study.
Patients diagnosed with either heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction had an 89% increased prevalence of dementia and a 41% increased prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), compared with people from the same cohort who did not develop heart failure, in an analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables, Lucy S. Witt, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. She speculated that the link between heart failure and dementia and MCI might result from impaired cerebral perfusion in heart failure patients or from effects from heart failure medications.
The analysis used data collected for the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, which began in 1987 and enrolled a randomly selected representative cohort of nearly 16,000 women and men aged 45-64 years old who resided in any of four U.S. communities. She specifically focused on the data collected from 6,431 of the participants who returned for a fifth follow-up examination during 2011-2013, including 5,490 people without heart failure, whose average age was 76 years, and 941 participants with heart failure, whose average age was 78 years.
Dementia prevalence at the fifth follow-up visit occurred at an adjusted rate of 5.6% among those without heart failure and 7.0% in those with heart failure. The examinations also found MCI in an adjusted 21.5% of those without heart failure and in 26.2% of those with heart failure, Dr. Witt reported. Adjustments included age, sex, location, education, hypertension, diabetes, depression, alcohol and tobacco use, cerebral vascular disease, marital status, and several other factors.
The relative risk for having dementia among the heart failure patients was roughly similar, regardless of whether ARIC participants with heart failure had a reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, she said.
ARIC is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Witt had no disclosures.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Patients with heart failure had an adjusted 86% increased rate of dementia, compared with similar people without heart failure.
Data source: Analysis of 6,431 ARIC participants who returned for a fifth follow-up examination during 2011-2013.
Disclosures: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Commmunities (ARIC) study is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Witt had no disclosures.
VIDEO: Checkpoint inhibitors show few efficacy, safety differences
VIENNA – The two subclasses of immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs showed very little basis for choosing between them by either efficacy or toxicity in a systematic review of 23 trials run in patients with non–small cell lung cancer during 2013-2016.
For efficacy, inhibitors of the programmed death (PD-1) receptors had a 19% overall response rate when averaged from 12 different trials with 3,284 patients on one of these drugs. The PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors produced a 17% overall response rate in 11 trials with 2,615 patients on one of the drugs, a between-class efficacy difference that was not statistically significant, Rathi N. Pillai, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
Immune-related adverse events were significantly more common in the patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors: 16%, compared with 11% in the PD-L1 inhibitor-treated patients (P = .04). The two subclasses also showed a trend toward a difference in the most common immune-related adverse event, hypothyroidism, with an incidence of 6.7% with PD-1 inhibitors and 4.2% with PD-L1 inhibitors (P = .07). The two sets of patients showed a statistically significant difference in the next most common immune-related adverse event, pneunomitis, 4.0% with PD-1 inhibitors and 2.0% with PD-L1 inhibitors (P = .02).
The trials with PD-1 inhibitors included nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda). The trials with PD-L1 inhibitors included atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab, and avelumab. The total rate of all adverse events was highest among patients on nivolumab, 76%, and lowest among patients on durvalumab, 61%.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
This very important systematic review with data from a total of nearly 6,000 patients shows that severe toxicity is unusual with the PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, and they result in no meaningful difference in response rates. The toxicities seen with these drugs are milder and less frequent than we see with standard chemotherapy drugs. The severe autoimmune toxicities seen are a major concern but are manageable and occurred at low rates.
In general, efficacy and toxicity does not appear to form a basis by which to choose among these drugs. Fatigue was the most common adverse event, which is surprising to see with these drugs although we are accustomed to seeing it in patients on standard chemotherapy. Fatigue can be a major issue for patients, even if it is relatively mild, because they remain on these drugs for periods as long as 2 years.
If the PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors continue to perform with similar efficacy and safety profiles, clinicians will be forced to turn to other parameters when trying to decide which drug specifically to prescribe. This can include issues of cost, reimbursement, and dosing convenience. Nivolumab, for example, has been administered more often, every 2 weeks, than the other drugs in these classes. Oncologists are trying to develop effective regimens with these drugs that can be given once every 3 or every 4 weeks. Future investigations may also look at the possibility of treating patients with these drugs initially for 6 months, and then scaling back to retreatment only when there is disease progression. If this approach is successful, it would obviate concerns about causing long-term fatigue or the inconvenience of more frequent treatment schedules.
We also need to continue to monitor and compare the toxicities of these immune checkpoint inhibitors as we move into using them in combination regimens.
Paul Mitchell, MD, is a medical oncologist at the Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre in Heidelberg, Australia. He has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Merck/MSD, Merck Serono, and Roche, and he has received honoraria from Merck and Roche, and he has received travel grants from BMS and Roche. He made these comments as the designated discussant for the report and in a video interview.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
This very important systematic review with data from a total of nearly 6,000 patients shows that severe toxicity is unusual with the PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, and they result in no meaningful difference in response rates. The toxicities seen with these drugs are milder and less frequent than we see with standard chemotherapy drugs. The severe autoimmune toxicities seen are a major concern but are manageable and occurred at low rates.
In general, efficacy and toxicity does not appear to form a basis by which to choose among these drugs. Fatigue was the most common adverse event, which is surprising to see with these drugs although we are accustomed to seeing it in patients on standard chemotherapy. Fatigue can be a major issue for patients, even if it is relatively mild, because they remain on these drugs for periods as long as 2 years.
If the PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors continue to perform with similar efficacy and safety profiles, clinicians will be forced to turn to other parameters when trying to decide which drug specifically to prescribe. This can include issues of cost, reimbursement, and dosing convenience. Nivolumab, for example, has been administered more often, every 2 weeks, than the other drugs in these classes. Oncologists are trying to develop effective regimens with these drugs that can be given once every 3 or every 4 weeks. Future investigations may also look at the possibility of treating patients with these drugs initially for 6 months, and then scaling back to retreatment only when there is disease progression. If this approach is successful, it would obviate concerns about causing long-term fatigue or the inconvenience of more frequent treatment schedules.
We also need to continue to monitor and compare the toxicities of these immune checkpoint inhibitors as we move into using them in combination regimens.
Paul Mitchell, MD, is a medical oncologist at the Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre in Heidelberg, Australia. He has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Merck/MSD, Merck Serono, and Roche, and he has received honoraria from Merck and Roche, and he has received travel grants from BMS and Roche. He made these comments as the designated discussant for the report and in a video interview.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
This very important systematic review with data from a total of nearly 6,000 patients shows that severe toxicity is unusual with the PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, and they result in no meaningful difference in response rates. The toxicities seen with these drugs are milder and less frequent than we see with standard chemotherapy drugs. The severe autoimmune toxicities seen are a major concern but are manageable and occurred at low rates.
In general, efficacy and toxicity does not appear to form a basis by which to choose among these drugs. Fatigue was the most common adverse event, which is surprising to see with these drugs although we are accustomed to seeing it in patients on standard chemotherapy. Fatigue can be a major issue for patients, even if it is relatively mild, because they remain on these drugs for periods as long as 2 years.
If the PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors continue to perform with similar efficacy and safety profiles, clinicians will be forced to turn to other parameters when trying to decide which drug specifically to prescribe. This can include issues of cost, reimbursement, and dosing convenience. Nivolumab, for example, has been administered more often, every 2 weeks, than the other drugs in these classes. Oncologists are trying to develop effective regimens with these drugs that can be given once every 3 or every 4 weeks. Future investigations may also look at the possibility of treating patients with these drugs initially for 6 months, and then scaling back to retreatment only when there is disease progression. If this approach is successful, it would obviate concerns about causing long-term fatigue or the inconvenience of more frequent treatment schedules.
We also need to continue to monitor and compare the toxicities of these immune checkpoint inhibitors as we move into using them in combination regimens.
Paul Mitchell, MD, is a medical oncologist at the Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre in Heidelberg, Australia. He has served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Merck/MSD, Merck Serono, and Roche, and he has received honoraria from Merck and Roche, and he has received travel grants from BMS and Roche. He made these comments as the designated discussant for the report and in a video interview.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
VIENNA – The two subclasses of immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs showed very little basis for choosing between them by either efficacy or toxicity in a systematic review of 23 trials run in patients with non–small cell lung cancer during 2013-2016.
For efficacy, inhibitors of the programmed death (PD-1) receptors had a 19% overall response rate when averaged from 12 different trials with 3,284 patients on one of these drugs. The PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors produced a 17% overall response rate in 11 trials with 2,615 patients on one of the drugs, a between-class efficacy difference that was not statistically significant, Rathi N. Pillai, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
Immune-related adverse events were significantly more common in the patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors: 16%, compared with 11% in the PD-L1 inhibitor-treated patients (P = .04). The two subclasses also showed a trend toward a difference in the most common immune-related adverse event, hypothyroidism, with an incidence of 6.7% with PD-1 inhibitors and 4.2% with PD-L1 inhibitors (P = .07). The two sets of patients showed a statistically significant difference in the next most common immune-related adverse event, pneunomitis, 4.0% with PD-1 inhibitors and 2.0% with PD-L1 inhibitors (P = .02).
The trials with PD-1 inhibitors included nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda). The trials with PD-L1 inhibitors included atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab, and avelumab. The total rate of all adverse events was highest among patients on nivolumab, 76%, and lowest among patients on durvalumab, 61%.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
VIENNA – The two subclasses of immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs showed very little basis for choosing between them by either efficacy or toxicity in a systematic review of 23 trials run in patients with non–small cell lung cancer during 2013-2016.
For efficacy, inhibitors of the programmed death (PD-1) receptors had a 19% overall response rate when averaged from 12 different trials with 3,284 patients on one of these drugs. The PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors produced a 17% overall response rate in 11 trials with 2,615 patients on one of the drugs, a between-class efficacy difference that was not statistically significant, Rathi N. Pillai, MD, said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
Immune-related adverse events were significantly more common in the patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors: 16%, compared with 11% in the PD-L1 inhibitor-treated patients (P = .04). The two subclasses also showed a trend toward a difference in the most common immune-related adverse event, hypothyroidism, with an incidence of 6.7% with PD-1 inhibitors and 4.2% with PD-L1 inhibitors (P = .07). The two sets of patients showed a statistically significant difference in the next most common immune-related adverse event, pneunomitis, 4.0% with PD-1 inhibitors and 2.0% with PD-L1 inhibitors (P = .02).
The trials with PD-1 inhibitors included nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda). The trials with PD-L1 inhibitors included atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab, and avelumab. The total rate of all adverse events was highest among patients on nivolumab, 76%, and lowest among patients on durvalumab, 61%.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT WCLC 2016
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Overall response rates were 19% using a PD-1 inhibitor and 17% when using a PD-L1 inhibitor.
Data source: A systematic review of 23 trials in patients with non–small cell lung cancer published during 2013-2016.
Disclosures: Dr. Pillai had no disclosures.