Neil Osterweil

Soot, or in scientific parlance “fine particulate matter,” isn’t just the stuff that blackens window sills or dulls car finishes — it’s a serious health hazard, linked to cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, allergies, and lung cancer, as well as a host of other harmful conditions.

Until recently, the annual ambient air quality standard established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was a maximum of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air of fine particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

But on February 7, 2024, the EPA announced that the Biden-Harris administration had finalized a new standard of 9 mcg PM2.5/per cubic meter of air.

In addition, the EPA reported that it will be modifying its PM­­2.5 monitoring network to include a factor that will account for the proximity to pollution sources of at-risk populations.

In a press release, the EPA said that the modification “will advance environmental justice by ensuring localized data collection in overburdened areas,” with the goal of informing future National Ambient Air Quality Standards reviews.

In a statement supporting the new standard, Environment America, a network of 30 state environmental groups, noted that in “the United States, the largest human-caused sources of soot pollution are fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — burned for electricity and transportation. Since the government last updated its standards, new research has found there may be no safe amount of air pollution and the World Health Organization cut in half its guidelines for allowable particulate matter (soot) pollution. The final rule lowers allowable soot limits for annual exposure by 25%, although it leaves the 24-hour limit unchanged, allowing for temporary pollution spikes.”
 

A Good Start

Pulmonologists interviewed for this article also applauded the tightened PM2.5 standard, but said that the change doesn’t go far enough.

“We know that particulate matter, also called particulate pollution, is the most dangerous form of air pollution, and there has been an extensive body of literature which outlines the negative impact of air pollution and poor air quality not only on respiratory health, but also on cardiovascular disease, premature pregnancies, mental health, and death,” Anne C. Coates, MD, FCCP, a pediatric pulmonologist at MaineHealth in Portland, Maine, said in an interview with this news organization.

“Lowering the limits certainly can help promote overall health as well as reduce asthma, COPD exacerbations, heart attacks, hospitalizations and death,” she said.

However “I wish that the EPA had gone further to address lowering the daily particulate matter standards because, remember, what they issued on February 7th was the reduction in the annual particulate matter,” she noted.

With the tighter standards, “things are going the right way,” said Priya Balakrishnan, MD, MS, FCCP, assistant professor in the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at West Virginia University in Morgantown.

Following Trump administration efforts to weaken regulatory authority and reverse environmental regulations promulgated under President Obama, “this is the first kind of positive legislation moving forward,” she said in an interview with this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s not ideal, because it’s just monitoring the annual particulate matter 2.5 levels rather than daily ones, but it’s still a change in the right direction,” she said.
 

Deadly Air

As Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan noted, the revised ambient air standard is averaged over a year, and as such may not accurately capture periods where particulate matter concentrations are dangerously high, as occurs in many US states and Canadian provinces during wildfire season, or when one of the more than 200 remaining coal-fired power plants in the US release clouds of soot during daily operations or especially during periods of high electricity demand.

Some pollution sources are worse than others, as shown by a study published in the November 24, 2023, issue of Science. Health and environmental investigators reported that among Medicare beneficiaries, exposure to PM2.5 from sulfur dioxide released by coal burning for electricity generation was associated with a doubling in risk of death compared to PM2.5 exposure from all other sources.

Air pollution has also been identified as a key factor in the development of non–small cell lung cancer in nonsmokers, according to Charles Swanton, PhD, of the Francis Crick Institute, and chief clinician of Cancer Research UK, both in London, and his colleagues.

As Dr. Swanton reported at the 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, among 447,932 participants in the UK Biobank, increasing exposure to PM2.5 was significantly associated with seven cancer types, including lung cancer. They also saw an association between PM­­2.5 exposure levels and EGFR-mutated lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Taiwan.

And as the investigators showed in mouse models, exposure to PM2.5 of lung cells bearing somatic EGFR and KRAS mutations causes recruitment of macrophages that in turn secrete interleukin-1B, resulting in a transdifferentiation of EGFR-mutated cells into a cancer stem cell state, and tumor formation.
 

Monitoring At-Risk Communities

Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America, explained in an interview how the revised standards may result in improvements in air quality, especially for at-risk populations such as lower-income urban dwellers.

“Regulations on particulate matter have been around for a few decades now, so there’s an established process that the state agencies and the EPA go through to make sure that air quality standards are met,” she said.

Over the next several years, the EPA will designate areas of the United States as either being in “attainment” (meeting primary or secondary ambient air quality standards) or in “nonattainment.”

“After that, implementation is up to the state and local air boards. They all are required to have a certain number of air quality monitors to keep track of pollution and they also handle reviewing permits for new construction, highways or other projects in that county that might affect air pollution,” she said.

Depending upon their size, counties are required under federal law to have air-quality monitoring sites in areas that are likely to have the worst air quality, such as major highways or urban traffic corridors.

Under the revised regulations, counties will be expected to have air-quality monitoring stations in or near at-risk communities, which should help to mitigate inequities that arise from proximity of polluting power plants in less-advantaged locations, Ms. Frank said.

“I think obviously any improvement in air quality is going to benefit everyone who breathes there, which I hope is all of us, but certainly people who already have the most air pollution hopefully should see bigger gains as well,” she said.

All persons interviewed for this article reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan are members of the editorial advisory board for CHEST Physician.

Soot, or in scientific parlance “fine particulate matter,” isn’t just the stuff that blackens window sills or dulls car finishes — it’s a serious health hazard, linked to cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, allergies, and lung cancer, as well as a host of other harmful conditions.

Until recently, the annual ambient air quality standard established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was a maximum of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air of fine particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

But on February 7, 2024, the EPA announced that the Biden-Harris administration had finalized a new standard of 9 mcg PM2.5/per cubic meter of air.

In addition, the EPA reported that it will be modifying its PM­­2.5 monitoring network to include a factor that will account for the proximity to pollution sources of at-risk populations.

In a press release, the EPA said that the modification “will advance environmental justice by ensuring localized data collection in overburdened areas,” with the goal of informing future National Ambient Air Quality Standards reviews.

In a statement supporting the new standard, Environment America, a network of 30 state environmental groups, noted that in “the United States, the largest human-caused sources of soot pollution are fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — burned for electricity and transportation. Since the government last updated its standards, new research has found there may be no safe amount of air pollution and the World Health Organization cut in half its guidelines for allowable particulate matter (soot) pollution. The final rule lowers allowable soot limits for annual exposure by 25%, although it leaves the 24-hour limit unchanged, allowing for temporary pollution spikes.”
 

A Good Start

Pulmonologists interviewed for this article also applauded the tightened PM2.5 standard, but said that the change doesn’t go far enough.

“We know that particulate matter, also called particulate pollution, is the most dangerous form of air pollution, and there has been an extensive body of literature which outlines the negative impact of air pollution and poor air quality not only on respiratory health, but also on cardiovascular disease, premature pregnancies, mental health, and death,” Anne C. Coates, MD, FCCP, a pediatric pulmonologist at MaineHealth in Portland, Maine, said in an interview with this news organization.

“Lowering the limits certainly can help promote overall health as well as reduce asthma, COPD exacerbations, heart attacks, hospitalizations and death,” she said.

However “I wish that the EPA had gone further to address lowering the daily particulate matter standards because, remember, what they issued on February 7th was the reduction in the annual particulate matter,” she noted.

With the tighter standards, “things are going the right way,” said Priya Balakrishnan, MD, MS, FCCP, assistant professor in the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at West Virginia University in Morgantown.

Following Trump administration efforts to weaken regulatory authority and reverse environmental regulations promulgated under President Obama, “this is the first kind of positive legislation moving forward,” she said in an interview with this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s not ideal, because it’s just monitoring the annual particulate matter 2.5 levels rather than daily ones, but it’s still a change in the right direction,” she said.
 

Deadly Air

As Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan noted, the revised ambient air standard is averaged over a year, and as such may not accurately capture periods where particulate matter concentrations are dangerously high, as occurs in many US states and Canadian provinces during wildfire season, or when one of the more than 200 remaining coal-fired power plants in the US release clouds of soot during daily operations or especially during periods of high electricity demand.

Some pollution sources are worse than others, as shown by a study published in the November 24, 2023, issue of Science. Health and environmental investigators reported that among Medicare beneficiaries, exposure to PM2.5 from sulfur dioxide released by coal burning for electricity generation was associated with a doubling in risk of death compared to PM2.5 exposure from all other sources.

Air pollution has also been identified as a key factor in the development of non–small cell lung cancer in nonsmokers, according to Charles Swanton, PhD, of the Francis Crick Institute, and chief clinician of Cancer Research UK, both in London, and his colleagues.

As Dr. Swanton reported at the 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, among 447,932 participants in the UK Biobank, increasing exposure to PM2.5 was significantly associated with seven cancer types, including lung cancer. They also saw an association between PM­­2.5 exposure levels and EGFR-mutated lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Taiwan.

And as the investigators showed in mouse models, exposure to PM2.5 of lung cells bearing somatic EGFR and KRAS mutations causes recruitment of macrophages that in turn secrete interleukin-1B, resulting in a transdifferentiation of EGFR-mutated cells into a cancer stem cell state, and tumor formation.
 

Monitoring At-Risk Communities

Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America, explained in an interview how the revised standards may result in improvements in air quality, especially for at-risk populations such as lower-income urban dwellers.

“Regulations on particulate matter have been around for a few decades now, so there’s an established process that the state agencies and the EPA go through to make sure that air quality standards are met,” she said.

Over the next several years, the EPA will designate areas of the United States as either being in “attainment” (meeting primary or secondary ambient air quality standards) or in “nonattainment.”

“After that, implementation is up to the state and local air boards. They all are required to have a certain number of air quality monitors to keep track of pollution and they also handle reviewing permits for new construction, highways or other projects in that county that might affect air pollution,” she said.

Depending upon their size, counties are required under federal law to have air-quality monitoring sites in areas that are likely to have the worst air quality, such as major highways or urban traffic corridors.

Under the revised regulations, counties will be expected to have air-quality monitoring stations in or near at-risk communities, which should help to mitigate inequities that arise from proximity of polluting power plants in less-advantaged locations, Ms. Frank said.

“I think obviously any improvement in air quality is going to benefit everyone who breathes there, which I hope is all of us, but certainly people who already have the most air pollution hopefully should see bigger gains as well,” she said.

All persons interviewed for this article reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan are members of the editorial advisory board for CHEST Physician.

Soot, or in scientific parlance “fine particulate matter,” isn’t just the stuff that blackens window sills or dulls car finishes — it’s a serious health hazard, linked to cardiopulmonary disease, asthma, allergies, and lung cancer, as well as a host of other harmful conditions.

Until recently, the annual ambient air quality standard established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was a maximum of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air of fine particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

But on February 7, 2024, the EPA announced that the Biden-Harris administration had finalized a new standard of 9 mcg PM2.5/per cubic meter of air.

In addition, the EPA reported that it will be modifying its PM­­2.5 monitoring network to include a factor that will account for the proximity to pollution sources of at-risk populations.

In a press release, the EPA said that the modification “will advance environmental justice by ensuring localized data collection in overburdened areas,” with the goal of informing future National Ambient Air Quality Standards reviews.

In a statement supporting the new standard, Environment America, a network of 30 state environmental groups, noted that in “the United States, the largest human-caused sources of soot pollution are fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — burned for electricity and transportation. Since the government last updated its standards, new research has found there may be no safe amount of air pollution and the World Health Organization cut in half its guidelines for allowable particulate matter (soot) pollution. The final rule lowers allowable soot limits for annual exposure by 25%, although it leaves the 24-hour limit unchanged, allowing for temporary pollution spikes.”
 

A Good Start

Pulmonologists interviewed for this article also applauded the tightened PM2.5 standard, but said that the change doesn’t go far enough.

“We know that particulate matter, also called particulate pollution, is the most dangerous form of air pollution, and there has been an extensive body of literature which outlines the negative impact of air pollution and poor air quality not only on respiratory health, but also on cardiovascular disease, premature pregnancies, mental health, and death,” Anne C. Coates, MD, FCCP, a pediatric pulmonologist at MaineHealth in Portland, Maine, said in an interview with this news organization.

“Lowering the limits certainly can help promote overall health as well as reduce asthma, COPD exacerbations, heart attacks, hospitalizations and death,” she said.

However “I wish that the EPA had gone further to address lowering the daily particulate matter standards because, remember, what they issued on February 7th was the reduction in the annual particulate matter,” she noted.

With the tighter standards, “things are going the right way,” said Priya Balakrishnan, MD, MS, FCCP, assistant professor in the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at West Virginia University in Morgantown.

Following Trump administration efforts to weaken regulatory authority and reverse environmental regulations promulgated under President Obama, “this is the first kind of positive legislation moving forward,” she said in an interview with this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s not ideal, because it’s just monitoring the annual particulate matter 2.5 levels rather than daily ones, but it’s still a change in the right direction,” she said.
 

Deadly Air

As Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan noted, the revised ambient air standard is averaged over a year, and as such may not accurately capture periods where particulate matter concentrations are dangerously high, as occurs in many US states and Canadian provinces during wildfire season, or when one of the more than 200 remaining coal-fired power plants in the US release clouds of soot during daily operations or especially during periods of high electricity demand.

Some pollution sources are worse than others, as shown by a study published in the November 24, 2023, issue of Science. Health and environmental investigators reported that among Medicare beneficiaries, exposure to PM2.5 from sulfur dioxide released by coal burning for electricity generation was associated with a doubling in risk of death compared to PM2.5 exposure from all other sources.

Air pollution has also been identified as a key factor in the development of non–small cell lung cancer in nonsmokers, according to Charles Swanton, PhD, of the Francis Crick Institute, and chief clinician of Cancer Research UK, both in London, and his colleagues.

As Dr. Swanton reported at the 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, among 447,932 participants in the UK Biobank, increasing exposure to PM2.5 was significantly associated with seven cancer types, including lung cancer. They also saw an association between PM­­2.5 exposure levels and EGFR-mutated lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Taiwan.

And as the investigators showed in mouse models, exposure to PM2.5 of lung cells bearing somatic EGFR and KRAS mutations causes recruitment of macrophages that in turn secrete interleukin-1B, resulting in a transdifferentiation of EGFR-mutated cells into a cancer stem cell state, and tumor formation.
 

Monitoring At-Risk Communities

Lisa Frank, executive director of the Washington legislative office of Environment America, explained in an interview how the revised standards may result in improvements in air quality, especially for at-risk populations such as lower-income urban dwellers.

“Regulations on particulate matter have been around for a few decades now, so there’s an established process that the state agencies and the EPA go through to make sure that air quality standards are met,” she said.

Over the next several years, the EPA will designate areas of the United States as either being in “attainment” (meeting primary or secondary ambient air quality standards) or in “nonattainment.”

“After that, implementation is up to the state and local air boards. They all are required to have a certain number of air quality monitors to keep track of pollution and they also handle reviewing permits for new construction, highways or other projects in that county that might affect air pollution,” she said.

Depending upon their size, counties are required under federal law to have air-quality monitoring sites in areas that are likely to have the worst air quality, such as major highways or urban traffic corridors.

Under the revised regulations, counties will be expected to have air-quality monitoring stations in or near at-risk communities, which should help to mitigate inequities that arise from proximity of polluting power plants in less-advantaged locations, Ms. Frank said.

“I think obviously any improvement in air quality is going to benefit everyone who breathes there, which I hope is all of us, but certainly people who already have the most air pollution hopefully should see bigger gains as well,” she said.

All persons interviewed for this article reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Coates and Dr. Balakrishnan are members of the editorial advisory board for CHEST Physician.

Many patients with chronic progressive pulmonary disease feel anxious and depressed as their conditions advance, as breathing becomes increasingly labored and difficult, and as performing even small daily tasks leaves them exhausted. 
Persons with severe COPD frequently report fears of suffocation and death, as well as anxieties about abandoning family and friends, and these negative, intrusive thoughts can have an adverse effect on COPD outcomes. 
Disease-related mental distress can lead to increased disability, more frequent use of costly health care resources, higher morbidity, and elevated risk of death, investigators say. 
"Individuals with severe COPD are twice as likely to develop depression than patients with mild COPD. Prevalence rates for clinical anxiety in COPD range from 13% to 46% in outpatients and 10% to 55% among inpatients," wrote Abebaw Mengitsu Yohannes, PhD, then from Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, California and colleagues in an article published jointly by The Journal of Family Practice and The Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.  

Fears of dying (and living)  

The causes of depression and anxiety among patients with obstructive pulmonary disorders are multi-factorial, and may require a variety of treatment and coping strategies, according to Susann Strang, RN, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.  
They conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 31 men and women with stage III or IV COPD, and found that the majority of patients had anxiety associated with their disease. 
"Analyses revealed three major themes: death anxiety, life anxiety, and counterweights to anxiety," the investigators wrote in a study published in the journal Palliative and Supportive Care in 2014. 
Factors contributing to anxiety surrounding death included fear of suffocation, awareness of impending death, fear of the process of death, and anxiety about being separated from loved ones. 
In contrast, some patients expressed dread of living with the limitations and loneliness imposed on them by their disease, so called "life anxiety." 
The patients also reported "counterweights" to anxiety as a way of coping. For some this involved trust in their health care professionals and adherence to medication, inhalers, and supplemental oxygen. 
"The patients also placed hope in new treatments, better medication, surgery, stem cell treatment, or lung transplants," Dr. Strang and colleagues reported. 
Others reported avoiding talking about death, sleeping more, or using humor to "laugh off this difficult subject." 

Screening and diagnosis 

Primary care practitioners are often the first health professionals that patients with COPD see, but these clinicians often don't have the time to add screening to their already crammed schedules. In addition, "the lack of a standardized approach in diagnosis, and inadequate knowledge or confidence in assessing psychological status (particularly given the number of strategies available for screening patients for mood disorders)," can make it difficult for PCPs to detect and manage anxiety and depression in their patients with significant health care burdens from COPD and other obstructive lung diseases, Dr. Yohannes and colleagues noted. 
In addition to commonly used screening tools for anxiety and depression such as the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), there are at least two designed to evaluate patients with lung disease: the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory (AIR) Disease scale, developed by Dr. Johannes and colleagues, and the COPD Anxiety Questionnaire. 
The COPD Assessment Testand Clinical COPD Questionnaire, while not specifically designed to screen for mental disorders, include questions that can point to symptoms of distress in patients with COPD, Dr. Yohannes said. 
"In truth I think that there are few providers who will routinely do this on all their patients in terms of quantifying the severity or the presence or absence of depression, but in my own practice I very much ask questions that align with the questions in these tools to determine whether my patient appears to have high levels of anxiety and depression," Dr. Garfield said. 

Listen to patients and families 

Among the most powerful tools that clinicians have at their disposal for treating anxiety and depression in patients with chronic lung disease are their ears and their minds, said Anthony Saleh, MD, a pulmonologist at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. 
"I think just listening to the patient, that's a little bit forgotten yet so important," he said in an interview with Chest Physician.  
"When I have someone with advanced lung disease, like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, like advanced emphysema, one of the most important things I think is to listen to the patient, and not just to listen to the answers of your perfunctory 'how's your breathing? Any chest pain?' and those sort of rote medical questions, but listen to their thoughts, and it will given them a safe space to say 'Hey, I'm nervous, hey I'm worried about my family, hey I'm worried if I die what's going to happen to my wife and kids,' and that's something I think is invaluable." 
It's also vital to listen to the concerns of the patients family members, who may be the primary caregivers and may share the patient's stresses and anxieties, he said. 

Pulmonary Rehabilitation 

All of the experts interviewed for this article agreed that a combination of medical, social and mental health support services is important for treatment for patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases. 
One of the most effective means of helping patients with both acute breathing problems and with disease-related anxiety and depression is pulmonary rehabilitation. Depending on disease severity, this multidisciplinary approach may involve exercise, patient education, psychological and nutrition counseling, and training patients how to conserve energy and adopt breathing strategies to help them better manage their symptoms. 
"I think that pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the first interventions that we should be recommending for our patients," Dr. Garfield said. "It's physical therapy for patients with chronic lung diseases, backed by respiratory therapists, and it offers not only physical rehabilitation - improving strength and coordination, but  also it helps our patients get as much as possible out of what they've got." 
For example, patients can be taught how to decrease their respiratory rate when they're feeling a sense of urgency or panic. Patients can also learn how to change body positions to help them breathe more effectively when they feel that their breath is limited or restricted, she said.  
"Once your into medical interventions, pulmonary rehab is phenomenal," Dr. Saleh said.  
Pulmonary rehabilitation helps patients to feel better about themselves and about their abilities, but "unfortunately it's not as available as we like," he said. 
Many patients don't live near a pulmonary rehabilitation center, and the typical two to three weekly sessions for 4 to 12 weeks or longer can be a significant burden for patients and caregivers, he acknowledged. 
"You have to sit [with the patient] and be honest and tell them it's a lot of diligence involved and you have to be really motivated," he said. 
Other treatment options include pharmacological therapy with antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and anxiolytic agents. 
"SSRIs are the current first-line drug treatment for depression, and have been shown to significantly improve depression and anxiety in patients with COPD in some, but not all, trials published to date. However, it is important to note that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder must be ruled out before initiating standard antidepressant therapy," Dr. Johannes and colleagues wrote. 

Defiant joy 

Importantly, even with the burden of life with COPD, many patients found ways to experience what Strang et al called "a defiant joy." 
 "It was remarkable that when the patients were asked about what gave their lives meaning today, many talked about what had given their life meaning in the past, prior to becoming ill. In the light of the things they had lost because of the disease, many felt that their previous sources of joy no longer existed. Despite this, many still hoped to be able to get out into the fresh air, to be able to do errands or that tomorrow might be better," the investigators wrote. 
Dr. Yohannes, Dr. Garfield, and Dr. Saleh all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Many patients with chronic progressive pulmonary disease feel anxious and depressed as their conditions advance, as breathing becomes increasingly labored and difficult, and as performing even small daily tasks leaves them exhausted. 
Persons with severe COPD frequently report fears of suffocation and death, as well as anxieties about abandoning family and friends, and these negative, intrusive thoughts can have an adverse effect on COPD outcomes. 
Disease-related mental distress can lead to increased disability, more frequent use of costly health care resources, higher morbidity, and elevated risk of death, investigators say. 
"Individuals with severe COPD are twice as likely to develop depression than patients with mild COPD. Prevalence rates for clinical anxiety in COPD range from 13% to 46% in outpatients and 10% to 55% among inpatients," wrote Abebaw Mengitsu Yohannes, PhD, then from Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, California and colleagues in an article published jointly by The Journal of Family Practice and The Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.  

Fears of dying (and living)  

The causes of depression and anxiety among patients with obstructive pulmonary disorders are multi-factorial, and may require a variety of treatment and coping strategies, according to Susann Strang, RN, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.  
They conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 31 men and women with stage III or IV COPD, and found that the majority of patients had anxiety associated with their disease. 
"Analyses revealed three major themes: death anxiety, life anxiety, and counterweights to anxiety," the investigators wrote in a study published in the journal Palliative and Supportive Care in 2014. 
Factors contributing to anxiety surrounding death included fear of suffocation, awareness of impending death, fear of the process of death, and anxiety about being separated from loved ones. 
In contrast, some patients expressed dread of living with the limitations and loneliness imposed on them by their disease, so called "life anxiety." 
The patients also reported "counterweights" to anxiety as a way of coping. For some this involved trust in their health care professionals and adherence to medication, inhalers, and supplemental oxygen. 
"The patients also placed hope in new treatments, better medication, surgery, stem cell treatment, or lung transplants," Dr. Strang and colleagues reported. 
Others reported avoiding talking about death, sleeping more, or using humor to "laugh off this difficult subject." 

Screening and diagnosis 

Primary care practitioners are often the first health professionals that patients with COPD see, but these clinicians often don't have the time to add screening to their already crammed schedules. In addition, "the lack of a standardized approach in diagnosis, and inadequate knowledge or confidence in assessing psychological status (particularly given the number of strategies available for screening patients for mood disorders)," can make it difficult for PCPs to detect and manage anxiety and depression in their patients with significant health care burdens from COPD and other obstructive lung diseases, Dr. Yohannes and colleagues noted. 
In addition to commonly used screening tools for anxiety and depression such as the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), there are at least two designed to evaluate patients with lung disease: the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory (AIR) Disease scale, developed by Dr. Johannes and colleagues, and the COPD Anxiety Questionnaire. 
The COPD Assessment Testand Clinical COPD Questionnaire, while not specifically designed to screen for mental disorders, include questions that can point to symptoms of distress in patients with COPD, Dr. Yohannes said. 
"In truth I think that there are few providers who will routinely do this on all their patients in terms of quantifying the severity or the presence or absence of depression, but in my own practice I very much ask questions that align with the questions in these tools to determine whether my patient appears to have high levels of anxiety and depression," Dr. Garfield said. 

Listen to patients and families 

Among the most powerful tools that clinicians have at their disposal for treating anxiety and depression in patients with chronic lung disease are their ears and their minds, said Anthony Saleh, MD, a pulmonologist at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. 
"I think just listening to the patient, that's a little bit forgotten yet so important," he said in an interview with Chest Physician.  
"When I have someone with advanced lung disease, like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, like advanced emphysema, one of the most important things I think is to listen to the patient, and not just to listen to the answers of your perfunctory 'how's your breathing? Any chest pain?' and those sort of rote medical questions, but listen to their thoughts, and it will given them a safe space to say 'Hey, I'm nervous, hey I'm worried about my family, hey I'm worried if I die what's going to happen to my wife and kids,' and that's something I think is invaluable." 
It's also vital to listen to the concerns of the patients family members, who may be the primary caregivers and may share the patient's stresses and anxieties, he said. 

Pulmonary Rehabilitation 

All of the experts interviewed for this article agreed that a combination of medical, social and mental health support services is important for treatment for patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases. 
One of the most effective means of helping patients with both acute breathing problems and with disease-related anxiety and depression is pulmonary rehabilitation. Depending on disease severity, this multidisciplinary approach may involve exercise, patient education, psychological and nutrition counseling, and training patients how to conserve energy and adopt breathing strategies to help them better manage their symptoms. 
"I think that pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the first interventions that we should be recommending for our patients," Dr. Garfield said. "It's physical therapy for patients with chronic lung diseases, backed by respiratory therapists, and it offers not only physical rehabilitation - improving strength and coordination, but  also it helps our patients get as much as possible out of what they've got." 
For example, patients can be taught how to decrease their respiratory rate when they're feeling a sense of urgency or panic. Patients can also learn how to change body positions to help them breathe more effectively when they feel that their breath is limited or restricted, she said.  
"Once your into medical interventions, pulmonary rehab is phenomenal," Dr. Saleh said.  
Pulmonary rehabilitation helps patients to feel better about themselves and about their abilities, but "unfortunately it's not as available as we like," he said. 
Many patients don't live near a pulmonary rehabilitation center, and the typical two to three weekly sessions for 4 to 12 weeks or longer can be a significant burden for patients and caregivers, he acknowledged. 
"You have to sit [with the patient] and be honest and tell them it's a lot of diligence involved and you have to be really motivated," he said. 
Other treatment options include pharmacological therapy with antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and anxiolytic agents. 
"SSRIs are the current first-line drug treatment for depression, and have been shown to significantly improve depression and anxiety in patients with COPD in some, but not all, trials published to date. However, it is important to note that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder must be ruled out before initiating standard antidepressant therapy," Dr. Johannes and colleagues wrote. 

Defiant joy 

Importantly, even with the burden of life with COPD, many patients found ways to experience what Strang et al called "a defiant joy." 
 "It was remarkable that when the patients were asked about what gave their lives meaning today, many talked about what had given their life meaning in the past, prior to becoming ill. In the light of the things they had lost because of the disease, many felt that their previous sources of joy no longer existed. Despite this, many still hoped to be able to get out into the fresh air, to be able to do errands or that tomorrow might be better," the investigators wrote. 
Dr. Yohannes, Dr. Garfield, and Dr. Saleh all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Many patients with chronic progressive pulmonary disease feel anxious and depressed as their conditions advance, as breathing becomes increasingly labored and difficult, and as performing even small daily tasks leaves them exhausted. 
Persons with severe COPD frequently report fears of suffocation and death, as well as anxieties about abandoning family and friends, and these negative, intrusive thoughts can have an adverse effect on COPD outcomes. 
Disease-related mental distress can lead to increased disability, more frequent use of costly health care resources, higher morbidity, and elevated risk of death, investigators say. 
"Individuals with severe COPD are twice as likely to develop depression than patients with mild COPD. Prevalence rates for clinical anxiety in COPD range from 13% to 46% in outpatients and 10% to 55% among inpatients," wrote Abebaw Mengitsu Yohannes, PhD, then from Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, California and colleagues in an article published jointly by The Journal of Family Practice and The Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.  

Fears of dying (and living)  

The causes of depression and anxiety among patients with obstructive pulmonary disorders are multi-factorial, and may require a variety of treatment and coping strategies, according to Susann Strang, RN, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.  
They conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with 31 men and women with stage III or IV COPD, and found that the majority of patients had anxiety associated with their disease. 
"Analyses revealed three major themes: death anxiety, life anxiety, and counterweights to anxiety," the investigators wrote in a study published in the journal Palliative and Supportive Care in 2014. 
Factors contributing to anxiety surrounding death included fear of suffocation, awareness of impending death, fear of the process of death, and anxiety about being separated from loved ones. 
In contrast, some patients expressed dread of living with the limitations and loneliness imposed on them by their disease, so called "life anxiety." 
The patients also reported "counterweights" to anxiety as a way of coping. For some this involved trust in their health care professionals and adherence to medication, inhalers, and supplemental oxygen. 
"The patients also placed hope in new treatments, better medication, surgery, stem cell treatment, or lung transplants," Dr. Strang and colleagues reported. 
Others reported avoiding talking about death, sleeping more, or using humor to "laugh off this difficult subject." 

Screening and diagnosis 

Primary care practitioners are often the first health professionals that patients with COPD see, but these clinicians often don't have the time to add screening to their already crammed schedules. In addition, "the lack of a standardized approach in diagnosis, and inadequate knowledge or confidence in assessing psychological status (particularly given the number of strategies available for screening patients for mood disorders)," can make it difficult for PCPs to detect and manage anxiety and depression in their patients with significant health care burdens from COPD and other obstructive lung diseases, Dr. Yohannes and colleagues noted. 
In addition to commonly used screening tools for anxiety and depression such as the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), there are at least two designed to evaluate patients with lung disease: the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory (AIR) Disease scale, developed by Dr. Johannes and colleagues, and the COPD Anxiety Questionnaire. 
The COPD Assessment Testand Clinical COPD Questionnaire, while not specifically designed to screen for mental disorders, include questions that can point to symptoms of distress in patients with COPD, Dr. Yohannes said. 
"In truth I think that there are few providers who will routinely do this on all their patients in terms of quantifying the severity or the presence or absence of depression, but in my own practice I very much ask questions that align with the questions in these tools to determine whether my patient appears to have high levels of anxiety and depression," Dr. Garfield said. 

Listen to patients and families 

Among the most powerful tools that clinicians have at their disposal for treating anxiety and depression in patients with chronic lung disease are their ears and their minds, said Anthony Saleh, MD, a pulmonologist at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. 
"I think just listening to the patient, that's a little bit forgotten yet so important," he said in an interview with Chest Physician.  
"When I have someone with advanced lung disease, like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, like advanced emphysema, one of the most important things I think is to listen to the patient, and not just to listen to the answers of your perfunctory 'how's your breathing? Any chest pain?' and those sort of rote medical questions, but listen to their thoughts, and it will given them a safe space to say 'Hey, I'm nervous, hey I'm worried about my family, hey I'm worried if I die what's going to happen to my wife and kids,' and that's something I think is invaluable." 
It's also vital to listen to the concerns of the patients family members, who may be the primary caregivers and may share the patient's stresses and anxieties, he said. 

Pulmonary Rehabilitation 

All of the experts interviewed for this article agreed that a combination of medical, social and mental health support services is important for treatment for patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases. 
One of the most effective means of helping patients with both acute breathing problems and with disease-related anxiety and depression is pulmonary rehabilitation. Depending on disease severity, this multidisciplinary approach may involve exercise, patient education, psychological and nutrition counseling, and training patients how to conserve energy and adopt breathing strategies to help them better manage their symptoms. 
"I think that pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the first interventions that we should be recommending for our patients," Dr. Garfield said. "It's physical therapy for patients with chronic lung diseases, backed by respiratory therapists, and it offers not only physical rehabilitation - improving strength and coordination, but  also it helps our patients get as much as possible out of what they've got." 
For example, patients can be taught how to decrease their respiratory rate when they're feeling a sense of urgency or panic. Patients can also learn how to change body positions to help them breathe more effectively when they feel that their breath is limited or restricted, she said.  
"Once your into medical interventions, pulmonary rehab is phenomenal," Dr. Saleh said.  
Pulmonary rehabilitation helps patients to feel better about themselves and about their abilities, but "unfortunately it's not as available as we like," he said. 
Many patients don't live near a pulmonary rehabilitation center, and the typical two to three weekly sessions for 4 to 12 weeks or longer can be a significant burden for patients and caregivers, he acknowledged. 
"You have to sit [with the patient] and be honest and tell them it's a lot of diligence involved and you have to be really motivated," he said. 
Other treatment options include pharmacological therapy with antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and anxiolytic agents. 
"SSRIs are the current first-line drug treatment for depression, and have been shown to significantly improve depression and anxiety in patients with COPD in some, but not all, trials published to date. However, it is important to note that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder must be ruled out before initiating standard antidepressant therapy," Dr. Johannes and colleagues wrote. 

Defiant joy 

Importantly, even with the burden of life with COPD, many patients found ways to experience what Strang et al called "a defiant joy." 
 "It was remarkable that when the patients were asked about what gave their lives meaning today, many talked about what had given their life meaning in the past, prior to becoming ill. In the light of the things they had lost because of the disease, many felt that their previous sources of joy no longer existed. Despite this, many still hoped to be able to get out into the fresh air, to be able to do errands or that tomorrow might be better," the investigators wrote. 
Dr. Yohannes, Dr. Garfield, and Dr. Saleh all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Localized melanoma of the skin is highly curable with surgery, especially when the malignancy is in its early stages. Yet many patients with successfully resected cutaneous melanoma may live in fear of recurrence and feel highly anxious about the prospect that their next skin examination may reveal a new lesion or metastasis.

These findings come from a study of 51 patients who were treated for stage 0 (melanoma in situ) to stage IIA (Breslow thickness 1.01-2.0 mm without lymph node invasion or metastasis) disease, and who were interviewed about their experiences as survivors and their fear of recurrence.

“Consistent themes and subthemes brought up by participants included anxiety associated with follow-up skin examinations, frequent biopsy procedures attributable to screening intensity, fear of the sun, changes in sun exposure behavior, and increasing thoughts about death. Many of these experiences profoundly affected participants’ lives, despite the favorable prognosis for this group,” wrote Ayisha N. Mahama, MD, MPH, from the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues, in an article published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Interviews and Inventory

The investigators sought to characterize the psychological well-being of localized melanoma survivors who were treated in their practice. Participants took part in a semistructured interview and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, with a score of 13 or greater indicating potential cases of clinically significant fear of recurrence.

The mean patient age was 48.5 years, and there were twice as many women as men (34 and 17, respectively). In all, 17 of the patients were treated for stage 0 melanoma, and the remainder were treated for stage I-IIA disease.

The interviews and survey revealed four main “themes” among the patients: anxiety surrounding follow-up appointments and relief after a normal examination; concerns about intensity of melanoma surveillance, including anxiety or reassurance about frequent biopsies and worries regarding familial melanoma risk; lifestyle changes related to sun exposure, such as limiting time outdoors, using sunscreen, and wearing protective clothing; and thoughts about life and death.

On the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, 38 of the 51 participants (75%) had a score of 13 or more points, indicating clinically significant fear of cancer recurrence, and when a higher threshold of 16 or more points were was applied, 34 participants (67%) still met the definition for clinically significant fear of recurrence.
 

Inform, Reassure, Counsel

“Given the crucial role that dermatologists play in diagnosing melanomas, there may be an opportunity to provide reassurance and support for patients to mitigate the psychological consequences of the diagnosis, by emphasizing the excellent life expectancy at a localized stage, particularly at stage 0. In addition, a referral to a mental health practitioner could be placed for patients with higher levels of anxiety and fear of recurrence,” Dr. Mahama and her coauthors wrote.

They also noted that their findings suggest that some individuals who undergo screening for melanoma might experience “psychological harms” from receiving a melanoma diagnosis “particularly given that many or most screening-detected early-stage melanomas will not progress.”

In an interview seeking objective commentary, a surgical oncologist who was not involved in the study said that anxiety about recurrence is common among patients with melanoma, many of whom may be unfamiliar with significant recent advances such as immunotherapy in the care of patients with more advanced disease.

“Often what we will do in addition to just sharing statistics, which are historical and don’t even necessarily reflect how much better we can do for patients now if the melanoma does recur or metastasize, is recommend close surveillance by their dermatologist,” said Sonia Cohen, MD, PhD, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

“The earlier we capture a recurrence the better we can help the patients. So that’s something we’ll recommend for patients to help give them a sense of control, and that they’re doing everything they can to capture current or new skin cancers,” she said.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues also instruct patients how to look for potential signs of recurrence, such as swollen lymph nodes or suspicious lesions. Patients who express extreme anxiety may also be referred to an oncology social worker or other support services, she said.

Also asked to comment on the results, Allison Dibiaso MSW, LICSW, a social worker at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who specializes in melanoma, said that she often sees patients who have been successfully treated for early localized malignant melanoma who experience a fear of recurrence. “These patients frequently express feelings of uncertainty and worry, with the fear of another occurrence always on their mind. Managing this fear on a day-to-day basis can be challenging,” she told this news organization.

Moreover, patients with previous treatment for melanoma often experience significant anxiety before skin exams. “Some may feel anxious and worried a few days or weeks before their appointment wondering if something will reoccur and be discovered during the examination,” she said. “While some individuals develop coping skills to manage their anxiety beforehand, many still feel anxious about the possibility of recurrence until after the exam is over and results are confirmed.”

At Dana-Farber, patients with completely resected lesions are provided with individual counseling and have access to support groups specifically designed for patients with melanoma. In addition, a caregiver group is also available for those supporting patients with melanoma, and, “if needed, we provide referrals to therapists in their local community,” Ms. Dibiaso said.

The study was supported by awards/grants to senior author Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dermatology Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society. All authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cohen had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Ms. Dibiaso had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

Localized melanoma of the skin is highly curable with surgery, especially when the malignancy is in its early stages. Yet many patients with successfully resected cutaneous melanoma may live in fear of recurrence and feel highly anxious about the prospect that their next skin examination may reveal a new lesion or metastasis.

These findings come from a study of 51 patients who were treated for stage 0 (melanoma in situ) to stage IIA (Breslow thickness 1.01-2.0 mm without lymph node invasion or metastasis) disease, and who were interviewed about their experiences as survivors and their fear of recurrence.

“Consistent themes and subthemes brought up by participants included anxiety associated with follow-up skin examinations, frequent biopsy procedures attributable to screening intensity, fear of the sun, changes in sun exposure behavior, and increasing thoughts about death. Many of these experiences profoundly affected participants’ lives, despite the favorable prognosis for this group,” wrote Ayisha N. Mahama, MD, MPH, from the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues, in an article published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Interviews and Inventory

The investigators sought to characterize the psychological well-being of localized melanoma survivors who were treated in their practice. Participants took part in a semistructured interview and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, with a score of 13 or greater indicating potential cases of clinically significant fear of recurrence.

The mean patient age was 48.5 years, and there were twice as many women as men (34 and 17, respectively). In all, 17 of the patients were treated for stage 0 melanoma, and the remainder were treated for stage I-IIA disease.

The interviews and survey revealed four main “themes” among the patients: anxiety surrounding follow-up appointments and relief after a normal examination; concerns about intensity of melanoma surveillance, including anxiety or reassurance about frequent biopsies and worries regarding familial melanoma risk; lifestyle changes related to sun exposure, such as limiting time outdoors, using sunscreen, and wearing protective clothing; and thoughts about life and death.

On the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, 38 of the 51 participants (75%) had a score of 13 or more points, indicating clinically significant fear of cancer recurrence, and when a higher threshold of 16 or more points were was applied, 34 participants (67%) still met the definition for clinically significant fear of recurrence.
 

Inform, Reassure, Counsel

“Given the crucial role that dermatologists play in diagnosing melanomas, there may be an opportunity to provide reassurance and support for patients to mitigate the psychological consequences of the diagnosis, by emphasizing the excellent life expectancy at a localized stage, particularly at stage 0. In addition, a referral to a mental health practitioner could be placed for patients with higher levels of anxiety and fear of recurrence,” Dr. Mahama and her coauthors wrote.

They also noted that their findings suggest that some individuals who undergo screening for melanoma might experience “psychological harms” from receiving a melanoma diagnosis “particularly given that many or most screening-detected early-stage melanomas will not progress.”

In an interview seeking objective commentary, a surgical oncologist who was not involved in the study said that anxiety about recurrence is common among patients with melanoma, many of whom may be unfamiliar with significant recent advances such as immunotherapy in the care of patients with more advanced disease.

“Often what we will do in addition to just sharing statistics, which are historical and don’t even necessarily reflect how much better we can do for patients now if the melanoma does recur or metastasize, is recommend close surveillance by their dermatologist,” said Sonia Cohen, MD, PhD, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

“The earlier we capture a recurrence the better we can help the patients. So that’s something we’ll recommend for patients to help give them a sense of control, and that they’re doing everything they can to capture current or new skin cancers,” she said.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues also instruct patients how to look for potential signs of recurrence, such as swollen lymph nodes or suspicious lesions. Patients who express extreme anxiety may also be referred to an oncology social worker or other support services, she said.

Also asked to comment on the results, Allison Dibiaso MSW, LICSW, a social worker at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who specializes in melanoma, said that she often sees patients who have been successfully treated for early localized malignant melanoma who experience a fear of recurrence. “These patients frequently express feelings of uncertainty and worry, with the fear of another occurrence always on their mind. Managing this fear on a day-to-day basis can be challenging,” she told this news organization.

Moreover, patients with previous treatment for melanoma often experience significant anxiety before skin exams. “Some may feel anxious and worried a few days or weeks before their appointment wondering if something will reoccur and be discovered during the examination,” she said. “While some individuals develop coping skills to manage their anxiety beforehand, many still feel anxious about the possibility of recurrence until after the exam is over and results are confirmed.”

At Dana-Farber, patients with completely resected lesions are provided with individual counseling and have access to support groups specifically designed for patients with melanoma. In addition, a caregiver group is also available for those supporting patients with melanoma, and, “if needed, we provide referrals to therapists in their local community,” Ms. Dibiaso said.

The study was supported by awards/grants to senior author Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dermatology Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society. All authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cohen had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Ms. Dibiaso had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

Localized melanoma of the skin is highly curable with surgery, especially when the malignancy is in its early stages. Yet many patients with successfully resected cutaneous melanoma may live in fear of recurrence and feel highly anxious about the prospect that their next skin examination may reveal a new lesion or metastasis.

These findings come from a study of 51 patients who were treated for stage 0 (melanoma in situ) to stage IIA (Breslow thickness 1.01-2.0 mm without lymph node invasion or metastasis) disease, and who were interviewed about their experiences as survivors and their fear of recurrence.

“Consistent themes and subthemes brought up by participants included anxiety associated with follow-up skin examinations, frequent biopsy procedures attributable to screening intensity, fear of the sun, changes in sun exposure behavior, and increasing thoughts about death. Many of these experiences profoundly affected participants’ lives, despite the favorable prognosis for this group,” wrote Ayisha N. Mahama, MD, MPH, from the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues, in an article published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Interviews and Inventory

The investigators sought to characterize the psychological well-being of localized melanoma survivors who were treated in their practice. Participants took part in a semistructured interview and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, with a score of 13 or greater indicating potential cases of clinically significant fear of recurrence.

The mean patient age was 48.5 years, and there were twice as many women as men (34 and 17, respectively). In all, 17 of the patients were treated for stage 0 melanoma, and the remainder were treated for stage I-IIA disease.

The interviews and survey revealed four main “themes” among the patients: anxiety surrounding follow-up appointments and relief after a normal examination; concerns about intensity of melanoma surveillance, including anxiety or reassurance about frequent biopsies and worries regarding familial melanoma risk; lifestyle changes related to sun exposure, such as limiting time outdoors, using sunscreen, and wearing protective clothing; and thoughts about life and death.

On the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, 38 of the 51 participants (75%) had a score of 13 or more points, indicating clinically significant fear of cancer recurrence, and when a higher threshold of 16 or more points were was applied, 34 participants (67%) still met the definition for clinically significant fear of recurrence.
 

Inform, Reassure, Counsel

“Given the crucial role that dermatologists play in diagnosing melanomas, there may be an opportunity to provide reassurance and support for patients to mitigate the psychological consequences of the diagnosis, by emphasizing the excellent life expectancy at a localized stage, particularly at stage 0. In addition, a referral to a mental health practitioner could be placed for patients with higher levels of anxiety and fear of recurrence,” Dr. Mahama and her coauthors wrote.

They also noted that their findings suggest that some individuals who undergo screening for melanoma might experience “psychological harms” from receiving a melanoma diagnosis “particularly given that many or most screening-detected early-stage melanomas will not progress.”

In an interview seeking objective commentary, a surgical oncologist who was not involved in the study said that anxiety about recurrence is common among patients with melanoma, many of whom may be unfamiliar with significant recent advances such as immunotherapy in the care of patients with more advanced disease.

“Often what we will do in addition to just sharing statistics, which are historical and don’t even necessarily reflect how much better we can do for patients now if the melanoma does recur or metastasize, is recommend close surveillance by their dermatologist,” said Sonia Cohen, MD, PhD, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

“The earlier we capture a recurrence the better we can help the patients. So that’s something we’ll recommend for patients to help give them a sense of control, and that they’re doing everything they can to capture current or new skin cancers,” she said.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues also instruct patients how to look for potential signs of recurrence, such as swollen lymph nodes or suspicious lesions. Patients who express extreme anxiety may also be referred to an oncology social worker or other support services, she said.

Also asked to comment on the results, Allison Dibiaso MSW, LICSW, a social worker at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who specializes in melanoma, said that she often sees patients who have been successfully treated for early localized malignant melanoma who experience a fear of recurrence. “These patients frequently express feelings of uncertainty and worry, with the fear of another occurrence always on their mind. Managing this fear on a day-to-day basis can be challenging,” she told this news organization.

Moreover, patients with previous treatment for melanoma often experience significant anxiety before skin exams. “Some may feel anxious and worried a few days or weeks before their appointment wondering if something will reoccur and be discovered during the examination,” she said. “While some individuals develop coping skills to manage their anxiety beforehand, many still feel anxious about the possibility of recurrence until after the exam is over and results are confirmed.”

At Dana-Farber, patients with completely resected lesions are provided with individual counseling and have access to support groups specifically designed for patients with melanoma. In addition, a caregiver group is also available for those supporting patients with melanoma, and, “if needed, we provide referrals to therapists in their local community,” Ms. Dibiaso said.

The study was supported by awards/grants to senior author Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dermatology Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society. All authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cohen had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Ms. Dibiaso had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

A novel oral drug for plaque psoriasis that targets the same inflammatory pathway as currently available parenteral therapies showed promise for treating moderate to severe disease in a phase 2 dose-finding trial.

Among 255 patients with plaque psoriasis randomly assigned to receive either placebo or an oral interleukin (IL)–23 receptor antagonist peptide dubbed JNJ-77242113 (Janssen), 79% of those who were assigned to the oral agent at the highest dose of 100 mg twice daily had a reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at week 16 of at least 75% (PASI 75) compared with 9% of patients assigned to placebo, reported Robert Bissonnette, MD, from Innovaderm Research in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues.

“The level of reduction of psoriasis that was observed with higher doses of JNJ-77242113 at week 16 was similar in magnitude to the responses seen with several of the injectable biologics that are currently approved for psoriasis,” investigators in the FRONTIER 1 trial wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigators noted that among patients assigned to the 100-mg dose of the active drug, 60% had a PASI 90 response, which compares favorably with that seen in phase 3 trials of two other orally available therapies for psoriasis, deucravacitinib (Sotyktu) and apremilast (Otezla). They cautioned, however, against drawing any further inferences from these data, because these agents have not been tested head-to-head against JNJ-77242113 in comparison trials.
 

Targets IL-23 and IL-17

The investigational agent is an oral IL-23 receptor antagonist peptide that selectively blocks IL-23 proximal signaling as well as the production of downstream inflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, according to the authors.

“Modulation of the interleukin-23 pathway with the use of monoclonal antibodies has shown efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis and is considered to be associated with a more favorable safety profile than older oral therapies (eg, cyclosporine, acitretin, methotrexate, and dimethyl fumarate),” the investigators wrote.

Currently available biologic agents targeting IL-23 include guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tildrakizumab (Ilumya). These agents require intravenous or subcutaneous administration, whereas JNJ-77242113 is taken orally, giving it a theoretical advantage in terms of patient preference.

The novel drug must be taken twice daily on an empty stomach at least 2 hours before food or drink, and those who take it must wait an additional 30 minutes to eat or drink after taking the drug. (This news organization has learned that in planned phase 3 studies, patients will be instructed to take a double daily dose on awakening and then wait 30 minutes for eating or drinking.)

‘Profoundly Effective’

The results of this study have convinced at least one former skeptic of the efficacy of the novel agent.

“They asked me to do the trial, and I turned it down, because I didn’t believe it would work,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean for Clinical Therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology at Mount Sinai Medicine in New York, NY.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Lebwohl said that he was initially dubious that a peptide, a short chain of amino acids directed against a receptor, could be effective because it would likely be digested in the intestinal tract.

“Indeed, more than 99% of it is digested, but the data show that the tiny amount that gets through is profoundly effective,” he said.

“I would never have believed that this was going to work – and it did,” Dr. Lebwohl added.

He has signed on as an investigator in the currently recruiting phase 3 ICONIC-LEAD trial, in which JNJ-77242113 will be tested against placebo in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. 

In an editorial accompanying the study in the NEJM, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, vice chair of clinical research and medical director of the Dermatology Clinical Studies Unit at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that if confirmed in larger studies, the PASI 90 rate at the highest dose “would be similar to the most effective injectable biologics,” with no evidence of increased adverse events at higher doses.

“However, two occurrences of infection (COVID-19 and an infected cyst) and a suicide attempt were reported as serious adverse events; larger trials will be needed to determine whether such events are attributable to chance, psoriasis itself, or inhibition of interleukin-23 signaling,” cautioned Dr. Gelfand, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania.

In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said that currently available IL-23 signaling inhibitors have an excellent safety profile and that the investigational oral agent also appears to be very safe. “It’s seeing a target whose effects are known, and the effects are all good and not bad,” he said.
 

FRONTIER-1 Details

The investigators enrolled eligible adults aged 18 years or older who had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis as defined by an Investigator’s Global Assessment score ≥ 3, a total body-surface area of psoriasis involvement of at least 10%, and a PASI score ≥ 12 who had received their diagnosis of plaque psoriasis at least 6 months before starting the trial. The participants had to be candidates for phototherapy or systemic psoriasis therapy.

Patients were randomly assigned to the active agent at doses of 25 mg once or twice daily, 50 mg once daily, or 100 mg once or twice daily for 16 weeks. 

There was a clear dose response, with 37% of patients assigned to 25-mg once-daily dose meeting the primary endpoint of a PASI 75 response at week 16 compared with 51% of those assigned to the 25-mg twice-daily dose, 58% assigned to 50-mg once-daily dose, 65% assigned to 100-mg once-daily dose, and 79% assigned to 100-mg twice-daily dose (P for dose response < .001).

As noted previously, 9% of patients in the placebo group had a PASI 75 response at week 16.

After a mean duration of 15.9 weeks, adverse events after the first dose of JNJ-77242113 (all dose groups were pooled for the safety analysis) were reported in 47% of patients on the 25-mg once-daily dose, 49% on 25-mg twice-daily dose, 60% on 50-mg once-daily dose, 44% on 100-mg once-daily dose, and 62% on 100-mg twice-daily dose. Adverse events after the first dose occurred in 51% of patients assigned to placebo.

The incidence of adverse events did not increase significantly with successively higher dose levels.

As noted by Dr. Gelfand in his editorial, there were three serious adverse events, all occurring in patients on the active drug: a case of COVID-19 in one patient and a suicide attempt in one patient, both in the 100-mg once-daily dose group, and an infected cyst in the 50-mg once-daily group. All three events were determined by the principal investigator and the sponsor to be unrelated to JNJ-77242113. 

There were no reports of deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, or incident cancers during the trial.

The study was supported by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Bissonnette disclosed institutional research funding and advisory board participation and honoraria with Janssen. Dr. Gelfand disclosed consulting for Janssen Biotech. Dr. Lebwohl disclosed institutional research funding from Janssen but no personal fees.

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

A novel oral drug for plaque psoriasis that targets the same inflammatory pathway as currently available parenteral therapies showed promise for treating moderate to severe disease in a phase 2 dose-finding trial.

Among 255 patients with plaque psoriasis randomly assigned to receive either placebo or an oral interleukin (IL)–23 receptor antagonist peptide dubbed JNJ-77242113 (Janssen), 79% of those who were assigned to the oral agent at the highest dose of 100 mg twice daily had a reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at week 16 of at least 75% (PASI 75) compared with 9% of patients assigned to placebo, reported Robert Bissonnette, MD, from Innovaderm Research in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues.

“The level of reduction of psoriasis that was observed with higher doses of JNJ-77242113 at week 16 was similar in magnitude to the responses seen with several of the injectable biologics that are currently approved for psoriasis,” investigators in the FRONTIER 1 trial wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigators noted that among patients assigned to the 100-mg dose of the active drug, 60% had a PASI 90 response, which compares favorably with that seen in phase 3 trials of two other orally available therapies for psoriasis, deucravacitinib (Sotyktu) and apremilast (Otezla). They cautioned, however, against drawing any further inferences from these data, because these agents have not been tested head-to-head against JNJ-77242113 in comparison trials.
 

Targets IL-23 and IL-17

The investigational agent is an oral IL-23 receptor antagonist peptide that selectively blocks IL-23 proximal signaling as well as the production of downstream inflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, according to the authors.

“Modulation of the interleukin-23 pathway with the use of monoclonal antibodies has shown efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis and is considered to be associated with a more favorable safety profile than older oral therapies (eg, cyclosporine, acitretin, methotrexate, and dimethyl fumarate),” the investigators wrote.

Currently available biologic agents targeting IL-23 include guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tildrakizumab (Ilumya). These agents require intravenous or subcutaneous administration, whereas JNJ-77242113 is taken orally, giving it a theoretical advantage in terms of patient preference.

The novel drug must be taken twice daily on an empty stomach at least 2 hours before food or drink, and those who take it must wait an additional 30 minutes to eat or drink after taking the drug. (This news organization has learned that in planned phase 3 studies, patients will be instructed to take a double daily dose on awakening and then wait 30 minutes for eating or drinking.)

‘Profoundly Effective’

The results of this study have convinced at least one former skeptic of the efficacy of the novel agent.

“They asked me to do the trial, and I turned it down, because I didn’t believe it would work,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean for Clinical Therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology at Mount Sinai Medicine in New York, NY.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Lebwohl said that he was initially dubious that a peptide, a short chain of amino acids directed against a receptor, could be effective because it would likely be digested in the intestinal tract.

“Indeed, more than 99% of it is digested, but the data show that the tiny amount that gets through is profoundly effective,” he said.

“I would never have believed that this was going to work – and it did,” Dr. Lebwohl added.

He has signed on as an investigator in the currently recruiting phase 3 ICONIC-LEAD trial, in which JNJ-77242113 will be tested against placebo in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. 

In an editorial accompanying the study in the NEJM, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, vice chair of clinical research and medical director of the Dermatology Clinical Studies Unit at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that if confirmed in larger studies, the PASI 90 rate at the highest dose “would be similar to the most effective injectable biologics,” with no evidence of increased adverse events at higher doses.

“However, two occurrences of infection (COVID-19 and an infected cyst) and a suicide attempt were reported as serious adverse events; larger trials will be needed to determine whether such events are attributable to chance, psoriasis itself, or inhibition of interleukin-23 signaling,” cautioned Dr. Gelfand, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania.

In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said that currently available IL-23 signaling inhibitors have an excellent safety profile and that the investigational oral agent also appears to be very safe. “It’s seeing a target whose effects are known, and the effects are all good and not bad,” he said.
 

FRONTIER-1 Details

The investigators enrolled eligible adults aged 18 years or older who had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis as defined by an Investigator’s Global Assessment score ≥ 3, a total body-surface area of psoriasis involvement of at least 10%, and a PASI score ≥ 12 who had received their diagnosis of plaque psoriasis at least 6 months before starting the trial. The participants had to be candidates for phototherapy or systemic psoriasis therapy.

Patients were randomly assigned to the active agent at doses of 25 mg once or twice daily, 50 mg once daily, or 100 mg once or twice daily for 16 weeks. 

There was a clear dose response, with 37% of patients assigned to 25-mg once-daily dose meeting the primary endpoint of a PASI 75 response at week 16 compared with 51% of those assigned to the 25-mg twice-daily dose, 58% assigned to 50-mg once-daily dose, 65% assigned to 100-mg once-daily dose, and 79% assigned to 100-mg twice-daily dose (P for dose response < .001).

As noted previously, 9% of patients in the placebo group had a PASI 75 response at week 16.

After a mean duration of 15.9 weeks, adverse events after the first dose of JNJ-77242113 (all dose groups were pooled for the safety analysis) were reported in 47% of patients on the 25-mg once-daily dose, 49% on 25-mg twice-daily dose, 60% on 50-mg once-daily dose, 44% on 100-mg once-daily dose, and 62% on 100-mg twice-daily dose. Adverse events after the first dose occurred in 51% of patients assigned to placebo.

The incidence of adverse events did not increase significantly with successively higher dose levels.

As noted by Dr. Gelfand in his editorial, there were three serious adverse events, all occurring in patients on the active drug: a case of COVID-19 in one patient and a suicide attempt in one patient, both in the 100-mg once-daily dose group, and an infected cyst in the 50-mg once-daily group. All three events were determined by the principal investigator and the sponsor to be unrelated to JNJ-77242113. 

There were no reports of deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, or incident cancers during the trial.

The study was supported by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Bissonnette disclosed institutional research funding and advisory board participation and honoraria with Janssen. Dr. Gelfand disclosed consulting for Janssen Biotech. Dr. Lebwohl disclosed institutional research funding from Janssen but no personal fees.

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

A novel oral drug for plaque psoriasis that targets the same inflammatory pathway as currently available parenteral therapies showed promise for treating moderate to severe disease in a phase 2 dose-finding trial.

Among 255 patients with plaque psoriasis randomly assigned to receive either placebo or an oral interleukin (IL)–23 receptor antagonist peptide dubbed JNJ-77242113 (Janssen), 79% of those who were assigned to the oral agent at the highest dose of 100 mg twice daily had a reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at week 16 of at least 75% (PASI 75) compared with 9% of patients assigned to placebo, reported Robert Bissonnette, MD, from Innovaderm Research in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues.

“The level of reduction of psoriasis that was observed with higher doses of JNJ-77242113 at week 16 was similar in magnitude to the responses seen with several of the injectable biologics that are currently approved for psoriasis,” investigators in the FRONTIER 1 trial wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigators noted that among patients assigned to the 100-mg dose of the active drug, 60% had a PASI 90 response, which compares favorably with that seen in phase 3 trials of two other orally available therapies for psoriasis, deucravacitinib (Sotyktu) and apremilast (Otezla). They cautioned, however, against drawing any further inferences from these data, because these agents have not been tested head-to-head against JNJ-77242113 in comparison trials.
 

Targets IL-23 and IL-17

The investigational agent is an oral IL-23 receptor antagonist peptide that selectively blocks IL-23 proximal signaling as well as the production of downstream inflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, according to the authors.

“Modulation of the interleukin-23 pathway with the use of monoclonal antibodies has shown efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis and is considered to be associated with a more favorable safety profile than older oral therapies (eg, cyclosporine, acitretin, methotrexate, and dimethyl fumarate),” the investigators wrote.

Currently available biologic agents targeting IL-23 include guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tildrakizumab (Ilumya). These agents require intravenous or subcutaneous administration, whereas JNJ-77242113 is taken orally, giving it a theoretical advantage in terms of patient preference.

The novel drug must be taken twice daily on an empty stomach at least 2 hours before food or drink, and those who take it must wait an additional 30 minutes to eat or drink after taking the drug. (This news organization has learned that in planned phase 3 studies, patients will be instructed to take a double daily dose on awakening and then wait 30 minutes for eating or drinking.)

‘Profoundly Effective’

The results of this study have convinced at least one former skeptic of the efficacy of the novel agent.

“They asked me to do the trial, and I turned it down, because I didn’t believe it would work,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean for Clinical Therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology at Mount Sinai Medicine in New York, NY.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Lebwohl said that he was initially dubious that a peptide, a short chain of amino acids directed against a receptor, could be effective because it would likely be digested in the intestinal tract.

“Indeed, more than 99% of it is digested, but the data show that the tiny amount that gets through is profoundly effective,” he said.

“I would never have believed that this was going to work – and it did,” Dr. Lebwohl added.

He has signed on as an investigator in the currently recruiting phase 3 ICONIC-LEAD trial, in which JNJ-77242113 will be tested against placebo in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. 

In an editorial accompanying the study in the NEJM, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, vice chair of clinical research and medical director of the Dermatology Clinical Studies Unit at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that if confirmed in larger studies, the PASI 90 rate at the highest dose “would be similar to the most effective injectable biologics,” with no evidence of increased adverse events at higher doses.

“However, two occurrences of infection (COVID-19 and an infected cyst) and a suicide attempt were reported as serious adverse events; larger trials will be needed to determine whether such events are attributable to chance, psoriasis itself, or inhibition of interleukin-23 signaling,” cautioned Dr. Gelfand, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania.

In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said that currently available IL-23 signaling inhibitors have an excellent safety profile and that the investigational oral agent also appears to be very safe. “It’s seeing a target whose effects are known, and the effects are all good and not bad,” he said.
 

FRONTIER-1 Details

The investigators enrolled eligible adults aged 18 years or older who had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis as defined by an Investigator’s Global Assessment score ≥ 3, a total body-surface area of psoriasis involvement of at least 10%, and a PASI score ≥ 12 who had received their diagnosis of plaque psoriasis at least 6 months before starting the trial. The participants had to be candidates for phototherapy or systemic psoriasis therapy.

Patients were randomly assigned to the active agent at doses of 25 mg once or twice daily, 50 mg once daily, or 100 mg once or twice daily for 16 weeks. 

There was a clear dose response, with 37% of patients assigned to 25-mg once-daily dose meeting the primary endpoint of a PASI 75 response at week 16 compared with 51% of those assigned to the 25-mg twice-daily dose, 58% assigned to 50-mg once-daily dose, 65% assigned to 100-mg once-daily dose, and 79% assigned to 100-mg twice-daily dose (P for dose response < .001).

As noted previously, 9% of patients in the placebo group had a PASI 75 response at week 16.

After a mean duration of 15.9 weeks, adverse events after the first dose of JNJ-77242113 (all dose groups were pooled for the safety analysis) were reported in 47% of patients on the 25-mg once-daily dose, 49% on 25-mg twice-daily dose, 60% on 50-mg once-daily dose, 44% on 100-mg once-daily dose, and 62% on 100-mg twice-daily dose. Adverse events after the first dose occurred in 51% of patients assigned to placebo.

The incidence of adverse events did not increase significantly with successively higher dose levels.

As noted by Dr. Gelfand in his editorial, there were three serious adverse events, all occurring in patients on the active drug: a case of COVID-19 in one patient and a suicide attempt in one patient, both in the 100-mg once-daily dose group, and an infected cyst in the 50-mg once-daily group. All three events were determined by the principal investigator and the sponsor to be unrelated to JNJ-77242113. 

There were no reports of deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, or incident cancers during the trial.

The study was supported by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Bissonnette disclosed institutional research funding and advisory board participation and honoraria with Janssen. Dr. Gelfand disclosed consulting for Janssen Biotech. Dr. Lebwohl disclosed institutional research funding from Janssen but no personal fees.

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

Patients with quiescent systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are on maintenance therapy with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may be able to be safely weaned off the drug with the understanding that disease flare may occur and may require restarting immunosuppressive therapy.

That’s the conclusion of investigators in a multicenter randomized trial conducted at 19 US centers and published in The Lancet Rheumatology. They found that among 100 patients with stable SLE who were on MMF for at least 2 years for renal indications or at least 1 year for nonrenal indications, MMF withdrawal was not significantly inferior to MMF maintenance in terms of clinically significant disease reactivation within at least 1 year.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Our findings suggest that mycophenolate mofetil could be safely withdrawn in patients with stable SLE. However, larger studies with a longer follow-up are still needed,” wrote Eliza F. Chakravarty, MD, MS, from the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine in Oklahoma City, and colleagues.

“Our study was only for 60 weeks, so we don’t have long-term data on what happens when patients taper off, but my recommendation — and I think the data support this — is that even if you do have a history of lupus nephritis, if you had stable disease or very little to no activity for a year or 2, then I think it’s worth stopping the medication and following for any signs of disease flare,” Dr. Chakravarty said in an interview with this news organization. 

She added that “in clinical practice, we would follow patients regularly no matter what they’re on, even if they’re in remission, looking for clinical signs or laboratory evidence of flare, and then if they look like they might be having flare, treat them accordingly.”
 

Toxicities a Concern

Although MMF is effective for inducing prolonged disease quiescence, it is a known teratogen and has significant toxicities, and it’s desirable to wean patients off the drug if it can be done safely, Dr. Chakravarty said.

The optimal duration of maintenance therapy with MMF is not known, however, which prompted the researchers to conduct the open-label study.

Patients aged 18-70 years who met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997 SLE criteria and had a clinical SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score ≤ 4 at screening and who also had been on stable or tapering MMF therapy for 2 or more years for renal indications or 1 or more year for nonrenal indications were eligible. All patients were on a background regimen of hydroxychloroquine.

Patients were randomly assigned on an equal basis to either withdrawal with a 12-week taper or to continued maintenance at their baseline dose, ranging from 1 to 3 g/day for 60 weeks. 

The investigators used an adaptive random-allocation strategy to ensure that the groups were balanced for study site, renal vs nonrenal disease, and baseline MMF dose (≥ 2 g/day vs < 2 g/day).

A total of 100 patients with an average age of 42 years were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis: 49 were randomly assigned to maintenance and 51 to withdrawal.

Overall, 84% of patients were women, 40% were White, and 41% were Black. Most patients, 76%, had a history of lupus nephritis. 

Significant disease reactivation, the primary endpoints, was defined as the need to increase prednisone to ≥ 15 mg/day for 4 weeks, the need for two or more short steroid bursts, or the need to resume MMF or start patients on another immunosuppressive therapy.

By week 60, 18% of patients in the withdrawal group had clinically significant disease reactivation compared with 10% of patients in the maintenance group.

“Although the differences were not significant, this study used an estimation-based design to determine estimated increases in clinically significant disease reactivation risk with 75%, 85%, and 95% confidence limits to assist clinicians and patients in making informed treatment decisions. We found a 6%-8% increase with upper 85% confidence limits of 11%-19% in clinically significant disease reactivation and flare risk following mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal,” the investigators wrote.

Rates of adverse events were similar between the groups, occurring in 90% of patients in the maintenance arm and 88% of those in the withdrawal arm. Infections occurred more frequently among patients in the maintenance group, at 64% vs 46%.
 

Encouraging Data

In an accompanying editorial, Noémie Jourde-Chiche, MD, PhD, from Aix-Marseille University in Marseille, France, and Laurent Chiche, MD, from Hopital Europeen de Marseille, wrote that the study data “were clearly encouraging.” They noted that the results show that it’s feasible to wean select patients off immunosuppressive therapy and keep SLE in check and that the quantified risk assessment strategy will allow shared decision-making for each patient.

“Overall, the prospect of a time-limited (versus lifelong) treatment may favor compliance, as observed in other disease fields, which might consolidate remission and reduce the risk of subsequent relapse, using sequentially treat-to-target and think-to-untreat strategies for a win-wean era in SLE,” they wrote.

“We’ve been awaiting the results of this trial for quite a while, and so it is nice to see it out,” commented Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and chair of the division of rheumatology and director of the Lupus Program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

“It does provide some data to address a question that comes up in discussions with patients all the time: A person with lupus has been doing really well, in what we call low disease activity state or remission, but on mycophenolate, possibly for several years,” she said in a reply to a request for objective commentary.

“The question is how and when to taper and can MMF be safely discontinued,” she said. “Personally, I always review the severity of the underlying disease and indication for the MMF in the first place. Really active SLE with rapidly progressing kidney or other organ damage has to be treated with tremendous respect and no one wants to go back there. I also think about how long it has been, which other medications are still being taken (hydroxychloroquine, belimumab [Benlysta], etc.) and whether the labs and symptoms have really returned to completely normal. Then I have discussions about all this with my patient and we often try a long, slow, gingerly taper with a lot of interim monitoring.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Chakravarty and Dr. Costenbader report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jourde-Chiche declares personal consulting fees from Otsuka and AstraZeneca, personal speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Otsuka, and personal payment for expert testimony from Otsuka. Dr. Chiche declares research grants paid to his institution from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, personal consulting fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca, and personal speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

Patients with quiescent systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are on maintenance therapy with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may be able to be safely weaned off the drug with the understanding that disease flare may occur and may require restarting immunosuppressive therapy.

That’s the conclusion of investigators in a multicenter randomized trial conducted at 19 US centers and published in The Lancet Rheumatology. They found that among 100 patients with stable SLE who were on MMF for at least 2 years for renal indications or at least 1 year for nonrenal indications, MMF withdrawal was not significantly inferior to MMF maintenance in terms of clinically significant disease reactivation within at least 1 year.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Our findings suggest that mycophenolate mofetil could be safely withdrawn in patients with stable SLE. However, larger studies with a longer follow-up are still needed,” wrote Eliza F. Chakravarty, MD, MS, from the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine in Oklahoma City, and colleagues.

“Our study was only for 60 weeks, so we don’t have long-term data on what happens when patients taper off, but my recommendation — and I think the data support this — is that even if you do have a history of lupus nephritis, if you had stable disease or very little to no activity for a year or 2, then I think it’s worth stopping the medication and following for any signs of disease flare,” Dr. Chakravarty said in an interview with this news organization. 

She added that “in clinical practice, we would follow patients regularly no matter what they’re on, even if they’re in remission, looking for clinical signs or laboratory evidence of flare, and then if they look like they might be having flare, treat them accordingly.”
 

Toxicities a Concern

Although MMF is effective for inducing prolonged disease quiescence, it is a known teratogen and has significant toxicities, and it’s desirable to wean patients off the drug if it can be done safely, Dr. Chakravarty said.

The optimal duration of maintenance therapy with MMF is not known, however, which prompted the researchers to conduct the open-label study.

Patients aged 18-70 years who met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997 SLE criteria and had a clinical SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score ≤ 4 at screening and who also had been on stable or tapering MMF therapy for 2 or more years for renal indications or 1 or more year for nonrenal indications were eligible. All patients were on a background regimen of hydroxychloroquine.

Patients were randomly assigned on an equal basis to either withdrawal with a 12-week taper or to continued maintenance at their baseline dose, ranging from 1 to 3 g/day for 60 weeks. 

The investigators used an adaptive random-allocation strategy to ensure that the groups were balanced for study site, renal vs nonrenal disease, and baseline MMF dose (≥ 2 g/day vs < 2 g/day).

A total of 100 patients with an average age of 42 years were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis: 49 were randomly assigned to maintenance and 51 to withdrawal.

Overall, 84% of patients were women, 40% were White, and 41% were Black. Most patients, 76%, had a history of lupus nephritis. 

Significant disease reactivation, the primary endpoints, was defined as the need to increase prednisone to ≥ 15 mg/day for 4 weeks, the need for two or more short steroid bursts, or the need to resume MMF or start patients on another immunosuppressive therapy.

By week 60, 18% of patients in the withdrawal group had clinically significant disease reactivation compared with 10% of patients in the maintenance group.

“Although the differences were not significant, this study used an estimation-based design to determine estimated increases in clinically significant disease reactivation risk with 75%, 85%, and 95% confidence limits to assist clinicians and patients in making informed treatment decisions. We found a 6%-8% increase with upper 85% confidence limits of 11%-19% in clinically significant disease reactivation and flare risk following mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal,” the investigators wrote.

Rates of adverse events were similar between the groups, occurring in 90% of patients in the maintenance arm and 88% of those in the withdrawal arm. Infections occurred more frequently among patients in the maintenance group, at 64% vs 46%.
 

Encouraging Data

In an accompanying editorial, Noémie Jourde-Chiche, MD, PhD, from Aix-Marseille University in Marseille, France, and Laurent Chiche, MD, from Hopital Europeen de Marseille, wrote that the study data “were clearly encouraging.” They noted that the results show that it’s feasible to wean select patients off immunosuppressive therapy and keep SLE in check and that the quantified risk assessment strategy will allow shared decision-making for each patient.

“Overall, the prospect of a time-limited (versus lifelong) treatment may favor compliance, as observed in other disease fields, which might consolidate remission and reduce the risk of subsequent relapse, using sequentially treat-to-target and think-to-untreat strategies for a win-wean era in SLE,” they wrote.

“We’ve been awaiting the results of this trial for quite a while, and so it is nice to see it out,” commented Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and chair of the division of rheumatology and director of the Lupus Program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

“It does provide some data to address a question that comes up in discussions with patients all the time: A person with lupus has been doing really well, in what we call low disease activity state or remission, but on mycophenolate, possibly for several years,” she said in a reply to a request for objective commentary.

“The question is how and when to taper and can MMF be safely discontinued,” she said. “Personally, I always review the severity of the underlying disease and indication for the MMF in the first place. Really active SLE with rapidly progressing kidney or other organ damage has to be treated with tremendous respect and no one wants to go back there. I also think about how long it has been, which other medications are still being taken (hydroxychloroquine, belimumab [Benlysta], etc.) and whether the labs and symptoms have really returned to completely normal. Then I have discussions about all this with my patient and we often try a long, slow, gingerly taper with a lot of interim monitoring.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Chakravarty and Dr. Costenbader report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jourde-Chiche declares personal consulting fees from Otsuka and AstraZeneca, personal speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Otsuka, and personal payment for expert testimony from Otsuka. Dr. Chiche declares research grants paid to his institution from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, personal consulting fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca, and personal speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

Patients with quiescent systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are on maintenance therapy with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may be able to be safely weaned off the drug with the understanding that disease flare may occur and may require restarting immunosuppressive therapy.

That’s the conclusion of investigators in a multicenter randomized trial conducted at 19 US centers and published in The Lancet Rheumatology. They found that among 100 patients with stable SLE who were on MMF for at least 2 years for renal indications or at least 1 year for nonrenal indications, MMF withdrawal was not significantly inferior to MMF maintenance in terms of clinically significant disease reactivation within at least 1 year.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“Our findings suggest that mycophenolate mofetil could be safely withdrawn in patients with stable SLE. However, larger studies with a longer follow-up are still needed,” wrote Eliza F. Chakravarty, MD, MS, from the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine in Oklahoma City, and colleagues.

“Our study was only for 60 weeks, so we don’t have long-term data on what happens when patients taper off, but my recommendation — and I think the data support this — is that even if you do have a history of lupus nephritis, if you had stable disease or very little to no activity for a year or 2, then I think it’s worth stopping the medication and following for any signs of disease flare,” Dr. Chakravarty said in an interview with this news organization. 

She added that “in clinical practice, we would follow patients regularly no matter what they’re on, even if they’re in remission, looking for clinical signs or laboratory evidence of flare, and then if they look like they might be having flare, treat them accordingly.”
 

Toxicities a Concern

Although MMF is effective for inducing prolonged disease quiescence, it is a known teratogen and has significant toxicities, and it’s desirable to wean patients off the drug if it can be done safely, Dr. Chakravarty said.

The optimal duration of maintenance therapy with MMF is not known, however, which prompted the researchers to conduct the open-label study.

Patients aged 18-70 years who met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997 SLE criteria and had a clinical SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score ≤ 4 at screening and who also had been on stable or tapering MMF therapy for 2 or more years for renal indications or 1 or more year for nonrenal indications were eligible. All patients were on a background regimen of hydroxychloroquine.

Patients were randomly assigned on an equal basis to either withdrawal with a 12-week taper or to continued maintenance at their baseline dose, ranging from 1 to 3 g/day for 60 weeks. 

The investigators used an adaptive random-allocation strategy to ensure that the groups were balanced for study site, renal vs nonrenal disease, and baseline MMF dose (≥ 2 g/day vs < 2 g/day).

A total of 100 patients with an average age of 42 years were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis: 49 were randomly assigned to maintenance and 51 to withdrawal.

Overall, 84% of patients were women, 40% were White, and 41% were Black. Most patients, 76%, had a history of lupus nephritis. 

Significant disease reactivation, the primary endpoints, was defined as the need to increase prednisone to ≥ 15 mg/day for 4 weeks, the need for two or more short steroid bursts, or the need to resume MMF or start patients on another immunosuppressive therapy.

By week 60, 18% of patients in the withdrawal group had clinically significant disease reactivation compared with 10% of patients in the maintenance group.

“Although the differences were not significant, this study used an estimation-based design to determine estimated increases in clinically significant disease reactivation risk with 75%, 85%, and 95% confidence limits to assist clinicians and patients in making informed treatment decisions. We found a 6%-8% increase with upper 85% confidence limits of 11%-19% in clinically significant disease reactivation and flare risk following mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal,” the investigators wrote.

Rates of adverse events were similar between the groups, occurring in 90% of patients in the maintenance arm and 88% of those in the withdrawal arm. Infections occurred more frequently among patients in the maintenance group, at 64% vs 46%.
 

Encouraging Data

In an accompanying editorial, Noémie Jourde-Chiche, MD, PhD, from Aix-Marseille University in Marseille, France, and Laurent Chiche, MD, from Hopital Europeen de Marseille, wrote that the study data “were clearly encouraging.” They noted that the results show that it’s feasible to wean select patients off immunosuppressive therapy and keep SLE in check and that the quantified risk assessment strategy will allow shared decision-making for each patient.

“Overall, the prospect of a time-limited (versus lifelong) treatment may favor compliance, as observed in other disease fields, which might consolidate remission and reduce the risk of subsequent relapse, using sequentially treat-to-target and think-to-untreat strategies for a win-wean era in SLE,” they wrote.

“We’ve been awaiting the results of this trial for quite a while, and so it is nice to see it out,” commented Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and chair of the division of rheumatology and director of the Lupus Program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

“It does provide some data to address a question that comes up in discussions with patients all the time: A person with lupus has been doing really well, in what we call low disease activity state or remission, but on mycophenolate, possibly for several years,” she said in a reply to a request for objective commentary.

“The question is how and when to taper and can MMF be safely discontinued,” she said. “Personally, I always review the severity of the underlying disease and indication for the MMF in the first place. Really active SLE with rapidly progressing kidney or other organ damage has to be treated with tremendous respect and no one wants to go back there. I also think about how long it has been, which other medications are still being taken (hydroxychloroquine, belimumab [Benlysta], etc.) and whether the labs and symptoms have really returned to completely normal. Then I have discussions about all this with my patient and we often try a long, slow, gingerly taper with a lot of interim monitoring.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Chakravarty and Dr. Costenbader report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jourde-Chiche declares personal consulting fees from Otsuka and AstraZeneca, personal speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Otsuka, and personal payment for expert testimony from Otsuka. Dr. Chiche declares research grants paid to his institution from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, personal consulting fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca, and personal speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that had progressed despite treatment with novel hormonal therapy had a slight but statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with a combination of a targeted agent and immunotherapy compared with a second-line novel hormonal therapy.

The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. 

“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

­­The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
 

Study Design Questioned

That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.

Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).

“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.

He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”

Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.

“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.

For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.

“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
 

Real-World Practice

“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.

He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.

In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.

He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
 

CONTACT-02 Details

Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median ­PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.

The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.

There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.

Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
 

Safety Data

The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.

Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.

In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.­­

CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.

Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that had progressed despite treatment with novel hormonal therapy had a slight but statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with a combination of a targeted agent and immunotherapy compared with a second-line novel hormonal therapy.

The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. 

“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

­­The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
 

Study Design Questioned

That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.

Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).

“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.

He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”

Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.

“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.

For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.

“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
 

Real-World Practice

“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.

He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.

In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.

He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
 

CONTACT-02 Details

Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median ­PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.

The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.

There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.

Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
 

Safety Data

The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.

Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.

In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.­­

CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.

Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that had progressed despite treatment with novel hormonal therapy had a slight but statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with a combination of a targeted agent and immunotherapy compared with a second-line novel hormonal therapy.

The combination of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib (Cabometyx), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), was associated with a median PFS of 6.3 months vs 4.2 months for patients assigned to second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone, or enzalutamide (Xtandi) in the CONTACT-02 trial, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, reported at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. 

“CONTACT 2 is the first phase 3 trial of the TKI/ICI combination to show statistically significant improvement in PFS in patients with mCRPC,” said Dr. Agarwal, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

­­The data support the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab as a potential new treatment option for patients with mCRPC that has progressed on novel hormonal therapy, he said.
 

Study Design Questioned

That opinion, however, was not shared by Kim N. Chi, MD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant.

Dr. Chi acknowledged that the study results as presented were positive, but also pointed to several limitations, including the small difference between the treatment groups in radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS).

“I would say the rPFS benefit is modest, and in the absence of other improvements the difference in the median rPFS is equivalent from one scan to the next in the scanning cycle. I would argue about the clinical significance of that,” he said.

He also noted that there was no improvement in the investigational arm in patient-reported outcomes, and that pain progression and quality-of-life deterioration occurred within 2 to 4 months, which is “quite quick.”

Additionally, he questioned the choice of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) switch as the control arm of the study.

“I’d also argue that ARPI switch is not the best standard of care for this patient population with measurable disease and 40% visceral metastases; there are better options,” he said.

For example, in phase 3 trials, docetaxel and cabazitaxel (Jevtana) have consistently demonstrated radiographic PFS of 8 to 9 months. In addition, lutetium-177–PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the tumor microenvironment, has also been shown to have PFS and overall survival benefits, he said.

“Irrespective of regulatory decisions, I personally could not recommend this at this time, given the data that we’ve seen and the better options that are available for this patient population,” Dr. Chi said.
 

Real-World Practice

“Kim Chi offered a pretty fair critique and summary of the control arm, but in real world practice, ARPI switch, from abi [abiraterone] to enza [enzalutamide] or enza to abi continues to be used in routine clinical practice for various reasons,” Xin Gao, MD, a genitourinary oncologist at Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, said in an interview.

“There are patients who can’t tolerate chemotherapy or don’t want chemotherapy, and we do know also that there are patients who can benefit from an ARPI switch, especially some patients with more indolent disease,” said Dr. Gao, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the study.

He noted that some patients being switched from abiraterone to enzalutamide have clinical responses, and that the ARPIs are generally more tolerable than chemotherapy.

In addition, CONTACT-02 is one of a series of trials in which ARPI switch was used as the control arm, and many of these trials were initiated before there were data confirming the superior efficacy of some newer therapeutic options, Dr. Gao noted.

He agreed, however that there is growing evidence to show that ARPI switch may not be the optimal choice for patients with more measurable disease, especially visceral metastases, and other more aggressive forms of mCRPC.
 

CONTACT-02 Details

Investigators in the phase 3 study screened 866 men with mCRPC and after stratification by liver metastases, prior docetaxel use for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, and disease stage for which the first novel hormonal therapy was given. About 500 patients (507) were randomized to receive either oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks or second hormonal therapy with either abiraterone 1000 mg with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily, or oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily.

After a median follow-up of 14.3 months in the PFS intention-to-treat population, the median ­PFS by blinded central review was 6.3 months with cabozantinib/atezolizumab and 4.2 months with second hormonal therapy. This translated into a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .0002). The results were similar for a PFS analysis according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria.

The combination was also associated with modest improvements in PFS in prespecified subgroups, including patients who had liver or bone metastases and those who had previously received docetaxel.

There were no significant differences in overall survival at the time of data cutoff. Overall survival data were not mature and will be reported at a later date.

Disease control rates, a composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease, were 73% with the combination and 55% with second hormonal therapy (P value not shown).
 

Safety Data

The safety analysis indicated that patients found the ARPI switch easier to tolerate than the combination.

Adverse events leading to dose reductions occurred in 40% of patients on the combination, vs 3% of patients on second hormonal therapy, and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13% and 2%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 48% of patients assigned to the combination vs. 23% of patients assigned to the ARPI switch.

In all, 8% of patients on the combination and 12% on second hormonal therapy died on study, but none of the deaths were deemed to be treatment related.­­

CONTACT-02 was sponsored by Exelixis in partnerships with Ipsen and Takeda.

Dr. Agarwal disclosed institutional research funding from Exelixis, Roche, Takeda, and others, and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, a consulting/advisory role and institutional research funding with Roche and others. Dr. Gao has served as a consultant or advisor to several companies, not including the sponsors of the study, and has served as principal investigator at his institution, which has received research funding from Exelixis, Takeda, and others.

Two drugs delivered in combination are better than one after the other for the first-line treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer bearing homologous recombination-repair mutations.

That’s the conclusion of investigators in the phase 2 BRCAAway trial, which compared a combination of abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone plus olaparib (Lynparza) against sequential therapy with the same agents.

At the time of data cutoff, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was 39 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 8.4 months for those assigned to abiraterone/prednisone, and 14 months for those assigned to olaparib monotherapy, reported Maha Hussain, MD, of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago.

“In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC] and BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, abiraterone and prednisone plus olaparib was well tolerated and resulted in better progression-free survival and response rates vs. single-agent olaparib or abiraterone/prednisone,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Although the study allowed crossover between the single-agent arms at the time of progression, only a few patients made the switch. Nonetheless, in these patients the PFS with the frontline combination was superior to that of sequential therapy, she noted.
 

Study Rationale and Design

Germline or somatic mutations in genes encoding for homologous recombination-repair occur in about 20% of men with mCRPC. Olaparib, a PARP1 (poly-adp ribose polymerase-1) inhibitor, interacts with androgen signaling, and preclinical studies have shown that castration-resistant prostate tumor cells have increased PARP1 activity. In addition, PARP1 has been shown preclinically to synergize with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) such as abiraterone, Dr. Hussain explained.

The BRCAAway trial was designed to test whether co-targeting the androgen receptor and PARP1 could result in higher and more durable responses than current frontline therapies in patients with mCRPC with DNA-damage response mutations.

Patients with mCRPC with no prior exposure to either a PARP1 inhibitor, androgen receptor inhibitor, or mCRPC-directed chemotherapy underwent next-generation sequencing and germline testing of tumor tissues, and those patients found to have inactivating BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to either abiraterone 1000 mg daily plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily (19 patients); olaparib 300 mg twice daily (21 patients); or to the combination (21 patients).

The primary endpoint was radiographic PFS according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria, clinical assessment, or death.

As noted, the median PFS was 8.4 months with abiraterone/prednisone, 14 months with olaparib, and 39 months with the combination.

Secondary endpoints also favored the combination therapy arm, with objective response rates of 22%, 14%, and 33%, respectively; PSA response rates of 61%, 67% and 95%; and undetectable PSA response rates of 17%, 14%, and 33%.

A total of 8 of 19 patients on abiraterone were crossed over to olaparib, and 8 of 21 initially assigned to olaparib were crossed over to abiraterone. In these patients the median PFS from crossover was 8.3 and 7.2 months, respectively. In each crossover group the median PFS from the time of randomization was 16 months.

There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths reported in any of the study arms, and “essentially when you look at the adverse events, they pretty much are consistent with what you would expect to see with these particular agents,” Dr. Hussain said.

“Overall the patients were tolerating the treatment well,” she added.
 

Practice Changing with Caveats

Kim N. Chi, MD, FRCPC, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant, said that the strengths of the study included an olaparib monotherapy arm — something that was missing from phase 3 trials — that provides insights into how PARP inhibitors perform in this population. He also applauded the inclusion of clinical assessment as a primary endpoint, noting that “this is what we do in routine practice, and therefore, the generalizability of the trial becomes more evident.”

The crossover design provides important information about whether an upfront combination or a sequential therapy approach is more effective, as well, he added.

He pointed out, however, that the trial was limited by small sample size and by its “horse race” design rather than as a comparison trial.

“So how does the BRCAAway trial change our practice? Despite the limitations, I think it does support an upfront PARP inhibitor-ARPI combination as firstline therapy for HRR gene-mutated metastatic CRPC. These data suggest synergy, and most importantly, there is no loss of opportunity [for more effective therapies]. However, the limitations of the trial will not end this debate today,” he said.

The trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Both Dr. Hussain and Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, consulting/advising, and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and others.

Two drugs delivered in combination are better than one after the other for the first-line treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer bearing homologous recombination-repair mutations.

That’s the conclusion of investigators in the phase 2 BRCAAway trial, which compared a combination of abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone plus olaparib (Lynparza) against sequential therapy with the same agents.

At the time of data cutoff, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was 39 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 8.4 months for those assigned to abiraterone/prednisone, and 14 months for those assigned to olaparib monotherapy, reported Maha Hussain, MD, of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago.

“In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC] and BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, abiraterone and prednisone plus olaparib was well tolerated and resulted in better progression-free survival and response rates vs. single-agent olaparib or abiraterone/prednisone,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Although the study allowed crossover between the single-agent arms at the time of progression, only a few patients made the switch. Nonetheless, in these patients the PFS with the frontline combination was superior to that of sequential therapy, she noted.
 

Study Rationale and Design

Germline or somatic mutations in genes encoding for homologous recombination-repair occur in about 20% of men with mCRPC. Olaparib, a PARP1 (poly-adp ribose polymerase-1) inhibitor, interacts with androgen signaling, and preclinical studies have shown that castration-resistant prostate tumor cells have increased PARP1 activity. In addition, PARP1 has been shown preclinically to synergize with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) such as abiraterone, Dr. Hussain explained.

The BRCAAway trial was designed to test whether co-targeting the androgen receptor and PARP1 could result in higher and more durable responses than current frontline therapies in patients with mCRPC with DNA-damage response mutations.

Patients with mCRPC with no prior exposure to either a PARP1 inhibitor, androgen receptor inhibitor, or mCRPC-directed chemotherapy underwent next-generation sequencing and germline testing of tumor tissues, and those patients found to have inactivating BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to either abiraterone 1000 mg daily plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily (19 patients); olaparib 300 mg twice daily (21 patients); or to the combination (21 patients).

The primary endpoint was radiographic PFS according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria, clinical assessment, or death.

As noted, the median PFS was 8.4 months with abiraterone/prednisone, 14 months with olaparib, and 39 months with the combination.

Secondary endpoints also favored the combination therapy arm, with objective response rates of 22%, 14%, and 33%, respectively; PSA response rates of 61%, 67% and 95%; and undetectable PSA response rates of 17%, 14%, and 33%.

A total of 8 of 19 patients on abiraterone were crossed over to olaparib, and 8 of 21 initially assigned to olaparib were crossed over to abiraterone. In these patients the median PFS from crossover was 8.3 and 7.2 months, respectively. In each crossover group the median PFS from the time of randomization was 16 months.

There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths reported in any of the study arms, and “essentially when you look at the adverse events, they pretty much are consistent with what you would expect to see with these particular agents,” Dr. Hussain said.

“Overall the patients were tolerating the treatment well,” she added.
 

Practice Changing with Caveats

Kim N. Chi, MD, FRCPC, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant, said that the strengths of the study included an olaparib monotherapy arm — something that was missing from phase 3 trials — that provides insights into how PARP inhibitors perform in this population. He also applauded the inclusion of clinical assessment as a primary endpoint, noting that “this is what we do in routine practice, and therefore, the generalizability of the trial becomes more evident.”

The crossover design provides important information about whether an upfront combination or a sequential therapy approach is more effective, as well, he added.

He pointed out, however, that the trial was limited by small sample size and by its “horse race” design rather than as a comparison trial.

“So how does the BRCAAway trial change our practice? Despite the limitations, I think it does support an upfront PARP inhibitor-ARPI combination as firstline therapy for HRR gene-mutated metastatic CRPC. These data suggest synergy, and most importantly, there is no loss of opportunity [for more effective therapies]. However, the limitations of the trial will not end this debate today,” he said.

The trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Both Dr. Hussain and Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, consulting/advising, and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and others.

Two drugs delivered in combination are better than one after the other for the first-line treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer bearing homologous recombination-repair mutations.

That’s the conclusion of investigators in the phase 2 BRCAAway trial, which compared a combination of abiraterone (Zytiga) and prednisone plus olaparib (Lynparza) against sequential therapy with the same agents.

At the time of data cutoff, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was 39 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 8.4 months for those assigned to abiraterone/prednisone, and 14 months for those assigned to olaparib monotherapy, reported Maha Hussain, MD, of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago.

“In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC] and BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, abiraterone and prednisone plus olaparib was well tolerated and resulted in better progression-free survival and response rates vs. single-agent olaparib or abiraterone/prednisone,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

Although the study allowed crossover between the single-agent arms at the time of progression, only a few patients made the switch. Nonetheless, in these patients the PFS with the frontline combination was superior to that of sequential therapy, she noted.
 

Study Rationale and Design

Germline or somatic mutations in genes encoding for homologous recombination-repair occur in about 20% of men with mCRPC. Olaparib, a PARP1 (poly-adp ribose polymerase-1) inhibitor, interacts with androgen signaling, and preclinical studies have shown that castration-resistant prostate tumor cells have increased PARP1 activity. In addition, PARP1 has been shown preclinically to synergize with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) such as abiraterone, Dr. Hussain explained.

The BRCAAway trial was designed to test whether co-targeting the androgen receptor and PARP1 could result in higher and more durable responses than current frontline therapies in patients with mCRPC with DNA-damage response mutations.

Patients with mCRPC with no prior exposure to either a PARP1 inhibitor, androgen receptor inhibitor, or mCRPC-directed chemotherapy underwent next-generation sequencing and germline testing of tumor tissues, and those patients found to have inactivating BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized on a 1:1:1 basis to either abiraterone 1000 mg daily plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily (19 patients); olaparib 300 mg twice daily (21 patients); or to the combination (21 patients).

The primary endpoint was radiographic PFS according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria, clinical assessment, or death.

As noted, the median PFS was 8.4 months with abiraterone/prednisone, 14 months with olaparib, and 39 months with the combination.

Secondary endpoints also favored the combination therapy arm, with objective response rates of 22%, 14%, and 33%, respectively; PSA response rates of 61%, 67% and 95%; and undetectable PSA response rates of 17%, 14%, and 33%.

A total of 8 of 19 patients on abiraterone were crossed over to olaparib, and 8 of 21 initially assigned to olaparib were crossed over to abiraterone. In these patients the median PFS from crossover was 8.3 and 7.2 months, respectively. In each crossover group the median PFS from the time of randomization was 16 months.

There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths reported in any of the study arms, and “essentially when you look at the adverse events, they pretty much are consistent with what you would expect to see with these particular agents,” Dr. Hussain said.

“Overall the patients were tolerating the treatment well,” she added.
 

Practice Changing with Caveats

Kim N. Chi, MD, FRCPC, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada, the invited discussant, said that the strengths of the study included an olaparib monotherapy arm — something that was missing from phase 3 trials — that provides insights into how PARP inhibitors perform in this population. He also applauded the inclusion of clinical assessment as a primary endpoint, noting that “this is what we do in routine practice, and therefore, the generalizability of the trial becomes more evident.”

The crossover design provides important information about whether an upfront combination or a sequential therapy approach is more effective, as well, he added.

He pointed out, however, that the trial was limited by small sample size and by its “horse race” design rather than as a comparison trial.

“So how does the BRCAAway trial change our practice? Despite the limitations, I think it does support an upfront PARP inhibitor-ARPI combination as firstline therapy for HRR gene-mutated metastatic CRPC. These data suggest synergy, and most importantly, there is no loss of opportunity [for more effective therapies]. However, the limitations of the trial will not end this debate today,” he said.

The trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Both Dr. Hussain and Dr. Chi disclosed honoraria, consulting/advising, and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and others.

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

SAN DIEGO — Two frontline therapy combinations for patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant are listed as “preferred” regimens, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. However, a new analysis of real-world patient outcomes suggests that one regimen may be significantly better.

The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.

In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.

For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.

To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. 

After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis. 

During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died. 

The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).

Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.

The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.

Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded. 

The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two frontline therapy combinations for patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant are listed as “preferred” regimens, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. However, a new analysis of real-world patient outcomes suggests that one regimen may be significantly better.

The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.

In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.

For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.

To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. 

After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis. 

During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died. 

The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).

Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.

The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.

Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded. 

The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two frontline therapy combinations for patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant are listed as “preferred” regimens, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. However, a new analysis of real-world patient outcomes suggests that one regimen may be significantly better.

The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.

In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.

For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.

To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. 

After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis. 

During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died. 

The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).

Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.

The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.

Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded. 

The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.