Nick Mulcahy

Driving along busy Custer Avenue in Helena, Mont., residents and visitors may notice a large billboard that simply reads: “We Support Dr. Tom Weiner.”

The sign costs $750 per month to rent and is funded entirely by cancer patients and locals.

They got together to raise $5,000 through a huge yard sale this summer. Some of the volunteers were cancer patients with active disease, challenged by a record-breaking heatwave, but determined to show up for the man they call “our doc.”

Dr. Weiner was their medical oncologist, and they want him back.

After working for 24 years at the only medical center in Helena, including the last five as its sole medical oncologist, Dr. Weiner was suddenly fired in November 2020.

He was removed for allegedly causing harm to patients, despite having a flawless record with the state’s Board of Medical Examiners, as previously reported by this news organization.   

Since then, Dr. Weiner launched a lawsuit against the medical center, St. Peter’s Health, and seeks damages in a jury trial, now scheduled for the fall of 2022.

Patients and families quickly rallied to support him. Within days, they formed the Facebook group We stand with Dr. Tom Weiner (4,000+ members) and, later, the more activist-oriented Patients and Friends of Dr. Tom Weiner (600+ members). Unlike some cause-oriented social media sites, the groups are busy, with fresh posts nearly every day.

In the past year, these supporters, who sometimes call themselves “Team Weiner,” have become a presence in Helena (population 32,000), undertaking a steady stream of activism, including performing weekly “stand-in” protests outside St. Peter’s.

In addition to funding billboards, the collection of patients, family members, and friends have installed lawn signs and worn face masks and T-shirts with pro-Weiner messages. All promotions are paid for by supporters.

Dr. Weiner does not participate in these activities, nor does he receive any of the money raised, his supporters emphasize.

A number of patients have also filed their own lawsuit against St. Peter’s for allegedly removing its only oncologist “without adequate notice or planning,” which “caused the hundreds of cancer patients to be left in a lurch without adequate care,” according to Keif Storrar, a lawyer involved in the suit.

Nearly a year after firing Dr. Weiner, St. Peter’s still does not have a replacement.

“We currently have three locum tenens medical oncologists and hematologists,” said Kathryn Gallagher, a spokesperson for St. Peter’s.

The medical center is “working closely with Huntsman Cancer Institute [in Utah] to operationalize our affiliation and recruit permanent medical oncologists to St. Peter’s,” she added.
 

Doc not working for nearly a year

Dr. Weiner, who is married with two adult children, has not worked over the past 11 months.

During that time, many of his former patients and their loved ones have been unwavering in their support for him. Some lit up their homes at Christmas with unifying purple lights to keep their tie with the oncologist symbolically alive.

“This is something of a phenomenon — this doctor is so beloved in this community. We will not give up,” commented Laura Fix, a local wine and spirits store owner who is married to one of Dr. Weiner’s former patients.

“Funny story,” said Ms. Fix, “when all this happened and we got the Facebook page going, and everyone was telling their personal story [about Dr. Weiner], I said to my husband, ‘God, I thought he just liked us.’ I realized he was wonderful with everybody and then I liked him even more.”

Dr. Weiner’s case has created a movement among otherwise strangers.

“None of us knew each other before,” said Dayna Hartley, a former patient treated for ovarian cancer and under Dr. Weiner’s care at the time of his firing.

“We all came together in our love for Dr. Weiner. Now we’re tight. Super tight,” she commented.

A former patient of Dr. Weiner’s at a weekly “stand-in” protest near St. Peter’s Health in Helena.

A silent prayer vigil for Dr. Weiner is planned for October 15, the 1-year anniversary of his being suspended by St Peter’s (which was followed by his firing in November). The candlelight event will take place on sidewalks outside of the medical center’s campus.

Ms. Gallagher said the medical center has not attempted to stop the near-yearlong protests: “We respect peaceful protest on public property,” she noted.

Vigil participants can sign a card for Dr. Weiner or deposit one with the organizers, which will be sent to the oncologist. He does not work with the activists and will not attend the vigil. 

His lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said that Dr. Weiner “is very humbled and appreciative of the support he has received from the community” and hopes to return to work in Helena.
 

Another $6,000 raised this month

The pro-Weiner billboard scheme is the brainchild of Ms. Hartley, a resident of nearby Montana City, which is part of the larger Helena “micropolitan” area (population 81,000).

Ms. Hartley says that she first tried to place the ad with local billboard companies. “No one would touch them,” she said.

She speculates that this is because Dr. Weiner was fired by St Peter’s Health, the largest employer in town after the state government (Helena is the state capital). “They [St Peter’s] spend a lot of money and a lot of local businesses don’t want to upset them,” she said.

The activists eventually turned to Lamar Advertising, one of the largest billboard companies in the world. But the cost of billboards tested the supporters’ resources. So Ms. Hartley hatched a second idea — a big yard sale, which needed a big space.  

That’s when Ms. Fix and her husband Bud Clinch stepped up. Mr. Clinch was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) by Dr. Weiner 14 years ago (after a set of misdiagnoses from other physicians) and was under his care until the firing.

The couple have a 48-acre ranch about a mile outside of town and offered to host the event. A team of organizers set a date for the yard sale — July 23 and 24 — and moved toward it.

The sale was advertised in the town’s newspaper and online in social media groups, and generated buzz.

First, donations poured in.

“I was in tears,” said Ms. Fix. “People arrived with pickup trucks and U-Hauls full of goods to drop off — and not just a bunch of junk. The generosity of people was unbelievable.”

There was a core group of about 20 volunteers, she said. “I can’t tell you how much those people worked in the hot sun.”

A fundraising yard sale was held in July to help pay for the billboard supporting Dr. Tom Weiner.

Folks in Helena are known for “pitch-in” events to help out neighbors, Ms. Fix said. But this was unlike anything the native Montanan had ever seen. “Hundreds” of bargain hunters attended the sale, she says, which included some high-end items such as designer purses donated by a woman in California who is a Dr. Weiner supporter.

The ranch’s guesthouse, a former creamery on the onetime farm, was stocked with water, vitamin water, sandwiches, trail mix and home-baked goods for volunteers to get out of the sun and the near-100°F temperatures.

The couple’s twin grandchildren ran a lemonade stand. Both of their grandfathers were treated by Dr. Weiner — Poppa Bud for CML and Poppa Tom for colon cancer, said Ms. Fix.

A second yard sale, also at the Clinch and Fix ranch, was held just 2 weeks ago and raised another $6,000.

Billboards in different locations in Helena are now planned until the year’s end, said Ms. Hartley. Receipts from the yard sales cover the costs. Ms. Hartley’s not worried about raising more money after that nor about the length of time needed to keep their fight going.

Dr. Weiner’s supporters, she said, “will plan to do more [billboards] in the future, for as long as it takes to vindicate our Doc.”

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

Driving along busy Custer Avenue in Helena, Mont., residents and visitors may notice a large billboard that simply reads: “We Support Dr. Tom Weiner.”

The sign costs $750 per month to rent and is funded entirely by cancer patients and locals.

They got together to raise $5,000 through a huge yard sale this summer. Some of the volunteers were cancer patients with active disease, challenged by a record-breaking heatwave, but determined to show up for the man they call “our doc.”

Dr. Weiner was their medical oncologist, and they want him back.

After working for 24 years at the only medical center in Helena, including the last five as its sole medical oncologist, Dr. Weiner was suddenly fired in November 2020.

He was removed for allegedly causing harm to patients, despite having a flawless record with the state’s Board of Medical Examiners, as previously reported by this news organization.   

Since then, Dr. Weiner launched a lawsuit against the medical center, St. Peter’s Health, and seeks damages in a jury trial, now scheduled for the fall of 2022.

Patients and families quickly rallied to support him. Within days, they formed the Facebook group We stand with Dr. Tom Weiner (4,000+ members) and, later, the more activist-oriented Patients and Friends of Dr. Tom Weiner (600+ members). Unlike some cause-oriented social media sites, the groups are busy, with fresh posts nearly every day.

In the past year, these supporters, who sometimes call themselves “Team Weiner,” have become a presence in Helena (population 32,000), undertaking a steady stream of activism, including performing weekly “stand-in” protests outside St. Peter’s.

In addition to funding billboards, the collection of patients, family members, and friends have installed lawn signs and worn face masks and T-shirts with pro-Weiner messages. All promotions are paid for by supporters.

Dr. Weiner does not participate in these activities, nor does he receive any of the money raised, his supporters emphasize.

A number of patients have also filed their own lawsuit against St. Peter’s for allegedly removing its only oncologist “without adequate notice or planning,” which “caused the hundreds of cancer patients to be left in a lurch without adequate care,” according to Keif Storrar, a lawyer involved in the suit.

Nearly a year after firing Dr. Weiner, St. Peter’s still does not have a replacement.

“We currently have three locum tenens medical oncologists and hematologists,” said Kathryn Gallagher, a spokesperson for St. Peter’s.

The medical center is “working closely with Huntsman Cancer Institute [in Utah] to operationalize our affiliation and recruit permanent medical oncologists to St. Peter’s,” she added.
 

Doc not working for nearly a year

Dr. Weiner, who is married with two adult children, has not worked over the past 11 months.

During that time, many of his former patients and their loved ones have been unwavering in their support for him. Some lit up their homes at Christmas with unifying purple lights to keep their tie with the oncologist symbolically alive.

“This is something of a phenomenon — this doctor is so beloved in this community. We will not give up,” commented Laura Fix, a local wine and spirits store owner who is married to one of Dr. Weiner’s former patients.

“Funny story,” said Ms. Fix, “when all this happened and we got the Facebook page going, and everyone was telling their personal story [about Dr. Weiner], I said to my husband, ‘God, I thought he just liked us.’ I realized he was wonderful with everybody and then I liked him even more.”

Dr. Weiner’s case has created a movement among otherwise strangers.

“None of us knew each other before,” said Dayna Hartley, a former patient treated for ovarian cancer and under Dr. Weiner’s care at the time of his firing.

“We all came together in our love for Dr. Weiner. Now we’re tight. Super tight,” she commented.

A former patient of Dr. Weiner’s at a weekly “stand-in” protest near St. Peter’s Health in Helena.

A silent prayer vigil for Dr. Weiner is planned for October 15, the 1-year anniversary of his being suspended by St Peter’s (which was followed by his firing in November). The candlelight event will take place on sidewalks outside of the medical center’s campus.

Ms. Gallagher said the medical center has not attempted to stop the near-yearlong protests: “We respect peaceful protest on public property,” she noted.

Vigil participants can sign a card for Dr. Weiner or deposit one with the organizers, which will be sent to the oncologist. He does not work with the activists and will not attend the vigil. 

His lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said that Dr. Weiner “is very humbled and appreciative of the support he has received from the community” and hopes to return to work in Helena.
 

Another $6,000 raised this month

The pro-Weiner billboard scheme is the brainchild of Ms. Hartley, a resident of nearby Montana City, which is part of the larger Helena “micropolitan” area (population 81,000).

Ms. Hartley says that she first tried to place the ad with local billboard companies. “No one would touch them,” she said.

She speculates that this is because Dr. Weiner was fired by St Peter’s Health, the largest employer in town after the state government (Helena is the state capital). “They [St Peter’s] spend a lot of money and a lot of local businesses don’t want to upset them,” she said.

The activists eventually turned to Lamar Advertising, one of the largest billboard companies in the world. But the cost of billboards tested the supporters’ resources. So Ms. Hartley hatched a second idea — a big yard sale, which needed a big space.  

That’s when Ms. Fix and her husband Bud Clinch stepped up. Mr. Clinch was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) by Dr. Weiner 14 years ago (after a set of misdiagnoses from other physicians) and was under his care until the firing.

The couple have a 48-acre ranch about a mile outside of town and offered to host the event. A team of organizers set a date for the yard sale — July 23 and 24 — and moved toward it.

The sale was advertised in the town’s newspaper and online in social media groups, and generated buzz.

First, donations poured in.

“I was in tears,” said Ms. Fix. “People arrived with pickup trucks and U-Hauls full of goods to drop off — and not just a bunch of junk. The generosity of people was unbelievable.”

There was a core group of about 20 volunteers, she said. “I can’t tell you how much those people worked in the hot sun.”

A fundraising yard sale was held in July to help pay for the billboard supporting Dr. Tom Weiner.

Folks in Helena are known for “pitch-in” events to help out neighbors, Ms. Fix said. But this was unlike anything the native Montanan had ever seen. “Hundreds” of bargain hunters attended the sale, she says, which included some high-end items such as designer purses donated by a woman in California who is a Dr. Weiner supporter.

The ranch’s guesthouse, a former creamery on the onetime farm, was stocked with water, vitamin water, sandwiches, trail mix and home-baked goods for volunteers to get out of the sun and the near-100°F temperatures.

The couple’s twin grandchildren ran a lemonade stand. Both of their grandfathers were treated by Dr. Weiner — Poppa Bud for CML and Poppa Tom for colon cancer, said Ms. Fix.

A second yard sale, also at the Clinch and Fix ranch, was held just 2 weeks ago and raised another $6,000.

Billboards in different locations in Helena are now planned until the year’s end, said Ms. Hartley. Receipts from the yard sales cover the costs. Ms. Hartley’s not worried about raising more money after that nor about the length of time needed to keep their fight going.

Dr. Weiner’s supporters, she said, “will plan to do more [billboards] in the future, for as long as it takes to vindicate our Doc.”

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

Driving along busy Custer Avenue in Helena, Mont., residents and visitors may notice a large billboard that simply reads: “We Support Dr. Tom Weiner.”

The sign costs $750 per month to rent and is funded entirely by cancer patients and locals.

They got together to raise $5,000 through a huge yard sale this summer. Some of the volunteers were cancer patients with active disease, challenged by a record-breaking heatwave, but determined to show up for the man they call “our doc.”

Dr. Weiner was their medical oncologist, and they want him back.

After working for 24 years at the only medical center in Helena, including the last five as its sole medical oncologist, Dr. Weiner was suddenly fired in November 2020.

He was removed for allegedly causing harm to patients, despite having a flawless record with the state’s Board of Medical Examiners, as previously reported by this news organization.   

Since then, Dr. Weiner launched a lawsuit against the medical center, St. Peter’s Health, and seeks damages in a jury trial, now scheduled for the fall of 2022.

Patients and families quickly rallied to support him. Within days, they formed the Facebook group We stand with Dr. Tom Weiner (4,000+ members) and, later, the more activist-oriented Patients and Friends of Dr. Tom Weiner (600+ members). Unlike some cause-oriented social media sites, the groups are busy, with fresh posts nearly every day.

In the past year, these supporters, who sometimes call themselves “Team Weiner,” have become a presence in Helena (population 32,000), undertaking a steady stream of activism, including performing weekly “stand-in” protests outside St. Peter’s.

In addition to funding billboards, the collection of patients, family members, and friends have installed lawn signs and worn face masks and T-shirts with pro-Weiner messages. All promotions are paid for by supporters.

Dr. Weiner does not participate in these activities, nor does he receive any of the money raised, his supporters emphasize.

A number of patients have also filed their own lawsuit against St. Peter’s for allegedly removing its only oncologist “without adequate notice or planning,” which “caused the hundreds of cancer patients to be left in a lurch without adequate care,” according to Keif Storrar, a lawyer involved in the suit.

Nearly a year after firing Dr. Weiner, St. Peter’s still does not have a replacement.

“We currently have three locum tenens medical oncologists and hematologists,” said Kathryn Gallagher, a spokesperson for St. Peter’s.

The medical center is “working closely with Huntsman Cancer Institute [in Utah] to operationalize our affiliation and recruit permanent medical oncologists to St. Peter’s,” she added.
 

Doc not working for nearly a year

Dr. Weiner, who is married with two adult children, has not worked over the past 11 months.

During that time, many of his former patients and their loved ones have been unwavering in their support for him. Some lit up their homes at Christmas with unifying purple lights to keep their tie with the oncologist symbolically alive.

“This is something of a phenomenon — this doctor is so beloved in this community. We will not give up,” commented Laura Fix, a local wine and spirits store owner who is married to one of Dr. Weiner’s former patients.

“Funny story,” said Ms. Fix, “when all this happened and we got the Facebook page going, and everyone was telling their personal story [about Dr. Weiner], I said to my husband, ‘God, I thought he just liked us.’ I realized he was wonderful with everybody and then I liked him even more.”

Dr. Weiner’s case has created a movement among otherwise strangers.

“None of us knew each other before,” said Dayna Hartley, a former patient treated for ovarian cancer and under Dr. Weiner’s care at the time of his firing.

“We all came together in our love for Dr. Weiner. Now we’re tight. Super tight,” she commented.

A former patient of Dr. Weiner’s at a weekly “stand-in” protest near St. Peter’s Health in Helena.

A silent prayer vigil for Dr. Weiner is planned for October 15, the 1-year anniversary of his being suspended by St Peter’s (which was followed by his firing in November). The candlelight event will take place on sidewalks outside of the medical center’s campus.

Ms. Gallagher said the medical center has not attempted to stop the near-yearlong protests: “We respect peaceful protest on public property,” she noted.

Vigil participants can sign a card for Dr. Weiner or deposit one with the organizers, which will be sent to the oncologist. He does not work with the activists and will not attend the vigil. 

His lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said that Dr. Weiner “is very humbled and appreciative of the support he has received from the community” and hopes to return to work in Helena.
 

Another $6,000 raised this month

The pro-Weiner billboard scheme is the brainchild of Ms. Hartley, a resident of nearby Montana City, which is part of the larger Helena “micropolitan” area (population 81,000).

Ms. Hartley says that she first tried to place the ad with local billboard companies. “No one would touch them,” she said.

She speculates that this is because Dr. Weiner was fired by St Peter’s Health, the largest employer in town after the state government (Helena is the state capital). “They [St Peter’s] spend a lot of money and a lot of local businesses don’t want to upset them,” she said.

The activists eventually turned to Lamar Advertising, one of the largest billboard companies in the world. But the cost of billboards tested the supporters’ resources. So Ms. Hartley hatched a second idea — a big yard sale, which needed a big space.  

That’s when Ms. Fix and her husband Bud Clinch stepped up. Mr. Clinch was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) by Dr. Weiner 14 years ago (after a set of misdiagnoses from other physicians) and was under his care until the firing.

The couple have a 48-acre ranch about a mile outside of town and offered to host the event. A team of organizers set a date for the yard sale — July 23 and 24 — and moved toward it.

The sale was advertised in the town’s newspaper and online in social media groups, and generated buzz.

First, donations poured in.

“I was in tears,” said Ms. Fix. “People arrived with pickup trucks and U-Hauls full of goods to drop off — and not just a bunch of junk. The generosity of people was unbelievable.”

There was a core group of about 20 volunteers, she said. “I can’t tell you how much those people worked in the hot sun.”

A fundraising yard sale was held in July to help pay for the billboard supporting Dr. Tom Weiner.

Folks in Helena are known for “pitch-in” events to help out neighbors, Ms. Fix said. But this was unlike anything the native Montanan had ever seen. “Hundreds” of bargain hunters attended the sale, she says, which included some high-end items such as designer purses donated by a woman in California who is a Dr. Weiner supporter.

The ranch’s guesthouse, a former creamery on the onetime farm, was stocked with water, vitamin water, sandwiches, trail mix and home-baked goods for volunteers to get out of the sun and the near-100°F temperatures.

The couple’s twin grandchildren ran a lemonade stand. Both of their grandfathers were treated by Dr. Weiner — Poppa Bud for CML and Poppa Tom for colon cancer, said Ms. Fix.

A second yard sale, also at the Clinch and Fix ranch, was held just 2 weeks ago and raised another $6,000.

Billboards in different locations in Helena are now planned until the year’s end, said Ms. Hartley. Receipts from the yard sales cover the costs. Ms. Hartley’s not worried about raising more money after that nor about the length of time needed to keep their fight going.

Dr. Weiner’s supporters, she said, “will plan to do more [billboards] in the future, for as long as it takes to vindicate our Doc.”

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

Oncologists at the University of San Francisco, California (UCSF) are calling for this year’s San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) to be moved out of Texas in response to the state’s new law banning abortions after 6 weeks.

Held annually in December, SABCS is the world’s largest breast cancer meeting and welcomes thousands of attendees every year.

The law banning abortions after 6 weeks, at which time a woman may not even realize that she is pregnant, has been described as the most restrictive in the United States. It also enables private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against people who assist a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.

If the meeting remains in Texas this year, then UCSF’s Laura Esserman, MD, director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, has said that she and other university faculty and professionals from elsewhere will attend only online — a form of boycotting the in-person event.

Dr. Esserman and UCSF colleague Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff, PhD, professor of radiation oncology, have emailed conference leaders encouraging them to move the meeting, according to a press statement issued by UCSF.

SABCS organizers told this news organization via email that they “are having serious discussions about this matter” and will update the public via their website and social media channels.

“It’s a terrible law, and it is absolutely not protective of women. I think that if Texas officials understood that when they pass laws inhospitable to women, we will not hold a major conference about women’s health in their state,” said Dr. Esserman.

Dr. Esserman received support for the idea to move the meeting earlier this month from peers on Twitter.

“In light of the Texas law that prohibits abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy AND promotes vigilantism, directly harming women and their caregivers, the 2021 SABCS breast cancer meeting should be moved out of Texas to a place that supports Women’s rights and public health #sabcs,” tweeted Dr. Esserman on September 5.

The post generated more than 3,300 likes and retweets and 40-plus comments from readers, many of whom were healthcare professionals.

Supporters of the proposed move included Michael Feldman, MD, PhD, pathologist, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; Sarah Sammons, MD, breast medical oncologist, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.; Anjali Thawani, MD, breast surgeon, Evanston, Ill.; Debora Barton, MD, Carisma Therapeutics, Philadelphia; Jane Hui, MD, surgical oncologist, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Erica Leith Mitchell, MD, surgeon, University of Tennessee, Memphis; and Rebecca Shatsky, MD, breast medical oncologist, University of California, San Diego.

Support for boycotting in-person attendance is growing nationally, Dr. Esserman said in the press statement, which also highlighted an “additional concern” about Texas laws prohibiting mandated masking and asking for vaccine status. Conference organizers said local ordinances will be used to require masking.

Notably, a Twitter search using #SABCS21, the meeting’s hashtag, indicates that COVID 19 — and not the restrictive abortion law — is the primary worry of would-be meeting attendees as of the last week or so.

Some said the combination of the two issues was influential in their decision not to attend in person.

Kelly Shanahan, MD, a former ob/gyn living with metastatic breast cancer in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., tweeted: “It’s a hybrid model this year. I was originally going in person but will not now because of their COVID behaviors and now this [the abortion law]. I will tune in virtually but I will not spend the $1500 on the hotel room, the hundreds of $$ on food and drink and Xmas presents. #SayNoToTX #SABCS21.”

Dr. Shanahan also replied to Dr. Esserman’s move-the-meeting-out-of-Texas tweet: “100% agree.”

UCSF’s Dr. Barcellos-Hoff believes moving the meeting would be a high-profile happening. “I think moving a meeting of that size would have an impact, largely because of the visibility of scientists who oppose the law.”

First organized in 1977, SABCS is jointly sponsored by the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Baylor College of Medicine.

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

Oncologists at the University of San Francisco, California (UCSF) are calling for this year’s San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) to be moved out of Texas in response to the state’s new law banning abortions after 6 weeks.

Held annually in December, SABCS is the world’s largest breast cancer meeting and welcomes thousands of attendees every year.

The law banning abortions after 6 weeks, at which time a woman may not even realize that she is pregnant, has been described as the most restrictive in the United States. It also enables private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against people who assist a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.

If the meeting remains in Texas this year, then UCSF’s Laura Esserman, MD, director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, has said that she and other university faculty and professionals from elsewhere will attend only online — a form of boycotting the in-person event.

Dr. Esserman and UCSF colleague Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff, PhD, professor of radiation oncology, have emailed conference leaders encouraging them to move the meeting, according to a press statement issued by UCSF.

SABCS organizers told this news organization via email that they “are having serious discussions about this matter” and will update the public via their website and social media channels.

“It’s a terrible law, and it is absolutely not protective of women. I think that if Texas officials understood that when they pass laws inhospitable to women, we will not hold a major conference about women’s health in their state,” said Dr. Esserman.

Dr. Esserman received support for the idea to move the meeting earlier this month from peers on Twitter.

“In light of the Texas law that prohibits abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy AND promotes vigilantism, directly harming women and their caregivers, the 2021 SABCS breast cancer meeting should be moved out of Texas to a place that supports Women’s rights and public health #sabcs,” tweeted Dr. Esserman on September 5.

The post generated more than 3,300 likes and retweets and 40-plus comments from readers, many of whom were healthcare professionals.

Supporters of the proposed move included Michael Feldman, MD, PhD, pathologist, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; Sarah Sammons, MD, breast medical oncologist, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.; Anjali Thawani, MD, breast surgeon, Evanston, Ill.; Debora Barton, MD, Carisma Therapeutics, Philadelphia; Jane Hui, MD, surgical oncologist, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Erica Leith Mitchell, MD, surgeon, University of Tennessee, Memphis; and Rebecca Shatsky, MD, breast medical oncologist, University of California, San Diego.

Support for boycotting in-person attendance is growing nationally, Dr. Esserman said in the press statement, which also highlighted an “additional concern” about Texas laws prohibiting mandated masking and asking for vaccine status. Conference organizers said local ordinances will be used to require masking.

Notably, a Twitter search using #SABCS21, the meeting’s hashtag, indicates that COVID 19 — and not the restrictive abortion law — is the primary worry of would-be meeting attendees as of the last week or so.

Some said the combination of the two issues was influential in their decision not to attend in person.

Kelly Shanahan, MD, a former ob/gyn living with metastatic breast cancer in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., tweeted: “It’s a hybrid model this year. I was originally going in person but will not now because of their COVID behaviors and now this [the abortion law]. I will tune in virtually but I will not spend the $1500 on the hotel room, the hundreds of $$ on food and drink and Xmas presents. #SayNoToTX #SABCS21.”

Dr. Shanahan also replied to Dr. Esserman’s move-the-meeting-out-of-Texas tweet: “100% agree.”

UCSF’s Dr. Barcellos-Hoff believes moving the meeting would be a high-profile happening. “I think moving a meeting of that size would have an impact, largely because of the visibility of scientists who oppose the law.”

First organized in 1977, SABCS is jointly sponsored by the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Baylor College of Medicine.

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

Oncologists at the University of San Francisco, California (UCSF) are calling for this year’s San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) to be moved out of Texas in response to the state’s new law banning abortions after 6 weeks.

Held annually in December, SABCS is the world’s largest breast cancer meeting and welcomes thousands of attendees every year.

The law banning abortions after 6 weeks, at which time a woman may not even realize that she is pregnant, has been described as the most restrictive in the United States. It also enables private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against people who assist a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.

If the meeting remains in Texas this year, then UCSF’s Laura Esserman, MD, director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, has said that she and other university faculty and professionals from elsewhere will attend only online — a form of boycotting the in-person event.

Dr. Esserman and UCSF colleague Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff, PhD, professor of radiation oncology, have emailed conference leaders encouraging them to move the meeting, according to a press statement issued by UCSF.

SABCS organizers told this news organization via email that they “are having serious discussions about this matter” and will update the public via their website and social media channels.

“It’s a terrible law, and it is absolutely not protective of women. I think that if Texas officials understood that when they pass laws inhospitable to women, we will not hold a major conference about women’s health in their state,” said Dr. Esserman.

Dr. Esserman received support for the idea to move the meeting earlier this month from peers on Twitter.

“In light of the Texas law that prohibits abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy AND promotes vigilantism, directly harming women and their caregivers, the 2021 SABCS breast cancer meeting should be moved out of Texas to a place that supports Women’s rights and public health #sabcs,” tweeted Dr. Esserman on September 5.

The post generated more than 3,300 likes and retweets and 40-plus comments from readers, many of whom were healthcare professionals.

Supporters of the proposed move included Michael Feldman, MD, PhD, pathologist, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; Sarah Sammons, MD, breast medical oncologist, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.; Anjali Thawani, MD, breast surgeon, Evanston, Ill.; Debora Barton, MD, Carisma Therapeutics, Philadelphia; Jane Hui, MD, surgical oncologist, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Erica Leith Mitchell, MD, surgeon, University of Tennessee, Memphis; and Rebecca Shatsky, MD, breast medical oncologist, University of California, San Diego.

Support for boycotting in-person attendance is growing nationally, Dr. Esserman said in the press statement, which also highlighted an “additional concern” about Texas laws prohibiting mandated masking and asking for vaccine status. Conference organizers said local ordinances will be used to require masking.

Notably, a Twitter search using #SABCS21, the meeting’s hashtag, indicates that COVID 19 — and not the restrictive abortion law — is the primary worry of would-be meeting attendees as of the last week or so.

Some said the combination of the two issues was influential in their decision not to attend in person.

Kelly Shanahan, MD, a former ob/gyn living with metastatic breast cancer in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., tweeted: “It’s a hybrid model this year. I was originally going in person but will not now because of their COVID behaviors and now this [the abortion law]. I will tune in virtually but I will not spend the $1500 on the hotel room, the hundreds of $$ on food and drink and Xmas presents. #SayNoToTX #SABCS21.”

Dr. Shanahan also replied to Dr. Esserman’s move-the-meeting-out-of-Texas tweet: “100% agree.”

UCSF’s Dr. Barcellos-Hoff believes moving the meeting would be a high-profile happening. “I think moving a meeting of that size would have an impact, largely because of the visibility of scientists who oppose the law.”

First organized in 1977, SABCS is jointly sponsored by the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Baylor College of Medicine.

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

Some women with the most-difficult-to-treat form of advanced breast cancer who have positively responded to atezolizumab (Tecentriq) are reporting panic and anxiety because oncologists have suddenly discontinued their prescriptions.

The discontinuance appears to be in reaction to an announcement by the manufacturer (Genentech) in late August that it has voluntarily withdrawn its application for accelerated approval of the drug for use in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).

However, experts stress that discontinuing atezolizumab is not advised if a patient is responding to or is stable on the immune checkpoint inhibitor.

“I think the Genentech announcement has been misinterpreted,” Maryam Lustberg, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “The consensus opinion from all academic breast oncologists is that people should not be switching off atezolizumab if they are responding. They should not be changing their immunotherapy.”

Dr. Lustberg said the announcement had two major points: “don’t start a new patient on atezolizumab,” and the company is “committed” to supplying the drug to patients whose conditions are stable or responding.

Nevertheless, some patients with mTNBC were recently in a state of escalating emotional upset, said one patient advocate.

“The level of panic among those currently on & responding well to Atezo is growing quickly,” tweeted Janice Cowden on Sept. 5, a former nurse living with mTNBC in Bradenton, Fla.

Ms. Cowden explained that “at least 10-20 patients” were “pulled [off the drug by their oncologists] this past week who have been stable/no evidence of disease/no evidence of disease activity on Tecentriq.”

She estimated that as many as 50 patients in the 2,200-member Triple Negative BC Stage 4 Facebook group who have been responding to the drug were abruptly de-prescribed atezolizumab since the Aug. 27 announcement from Genentech.

Many women learned of the change via patient portals or text messaging, not directly from their physicians, Cowden told Medscape Medical News.

Some of the women had been taking atezolizumab for 2-3 years, including those with no evidence of disease, she said. “Finding out that their oncologist was discontinuing a treatment that was working for them has been driving so much anxiety and stress,” Ms. Cowden emphasized.

Most market withdrawals of drugs are related to safety, but that is not the case with atezolizumab, said Sara Horton, MD, of Howard University, Washington. She was speaking at the recent Facebook webinar on atezolizumab and mTNBC that was sponsored by the TNBC Foundation and the Young Survivors Coalition.

In the case of atezolizumab, it was a question about efficacy that prompted the withdrawal. After the indication was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response data, a confirmatory trial set out to show clinical benefit. However, the confirmatory phase 3 IMpassion131 trial did not do so: it found that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk for cancer progression and death in comparison with paclitaxel plus placebo among patients with TNBC with tumors that were positive for programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-L1), as reported by Medscape Medical News.

These results were discussed by the Food and Drug Administration on the first day of a historic 3-day meeting on accelerated approvals in April 2021. Despite the failure of confirmation of clinical benefit, the advisory panel voted 7-2 in favor of keeping the approval in place for atezolizumab in TNBC. At the same time, it urged Genentech to carry out more studies to show that the drug works in this patient population.

The company apparently decided not to do that and instead voluntarily withdrew the application for the indication some 4 months later.

During the recent TNBC Foundation webinar, Genentech official Lauren Davis said that the company sent letters about this decision to atezolizumab-prescribing physicians and included another letter that was to be shared with patients. Ms. Davis had not responded to this news organization’s request to review the communications at the time this article was published.

At the webinar, Ms. Davis did clarify that current atezolizumab patients (who are responding to the drug), who have commercial insurance, and who benefit from Genentech’s copay program will continue to receive the benefit until June 2022.

In its August announcement, Genentech said it decided to withdraw the atezolizumab approval on the basis of the FDA’s assessment of the “current mTNBC treatment landscape and in accordance with the requirements of the accelerated approval program.”

That landscape presumably includes pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which received a full approval for a TNBC indication similar to that of atezolizumab in July. That full approval was based on findings from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed significantly prolonged event-free survival with the pembrolizumab regimen in comparison with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone for previously untreated stage II or III TNBC. Details of these clinical data will be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.
 

Switching the immunotherapy?

Some U.S. oncologists have been telling patients with mTNBC that the atezolizumab withdrawal is “not an issue” because the new full approval of pembrolizumab in this setting will allow prescriptions to be switched, said patient advocate Ms. Cowden.

However, experts have said that no patient who is responding to or whose condition is stable with atezolizumab should switch immunotherapies. “This is a very aggressive disease,” reminded Dr. Lustberg.

Switching the immunotherapies is complicated by the difference in the respective drugs’ companion biomarker assays used to establish the presence of PD-L1.

Dr. Lustberg explained that patients who are not responding to atezolizumab and who now want to try pembrolizumab will have to be assessed with the CTS assay.

“About 22% of the patients who are positive for the atezolizumab biomarker assay SP-142 are not going to be positive for the CTS,” she said.

In other words, about one in four patients with mTNBC who are taking atezolizumab will not qualify for treatment with pembrolizumab.

Rebecca Shatsky, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, echoed those comments in an email to this news organization – and emphatically discouraged switching off atezolizumab (and going on pembrolizumab) if a patient is having success (i.e., stable disease or positive response).

“The two groups don’t always overlap, so it isn’t an easy switch. That’s why if they are already responding, I would NOT have them stop the drug,” she said.

Not every mTNBC patient receiving – and responding to – atezolizumab has had the unfortunate experience of having their prescription canceled.

Johanna Rauhala, of San Francisco, who is a former middle-school teacher and who writes the blog Pink Stinks, has been taking atezolizumab for 2 years. She has had a partial response and now, after taking the immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy (gemcitabine and carboplatin), has stable disease. Currently, she is taking single-agent atezolizumab..

Ms. Rauhala has been living with mTNBC for 5 years. She said in an interview that she was “very surprised and concerned” to learn about Genentech’s withdrawal of its accelerated approval. She said that at her next treatment appointment, she was “probably going to ask the oncology nurse first [about the atezolizumab withdrawal] – because they are the front line, and I will then follow-up with my doctor. But I can’t imagine that they will take away something that is working.”

Dr. Shatsky, Dr. Horton, and Dr. Lunsberg report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Some women with the most-difficult-to-treat form of advanced breast cancer who have positively responded to atezolizumab (Tecentriq) are reporting panic and anxiety because oncologists have suddenly discontinued their prescriptions.

The discontinuance appears to be in reaction to an announcement by the manufacturer (Genentech) in late August that it has voluntarily withdrawn its application for accelerated approval of the drug for use in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).

However, experts stress that discontinuing atezolizumab is not advised if a patient is responding to or is stable on the immune checkpoint inhibitor.

“I think the Genentech announcement has been misinterpreted,” Maryam Lustberg, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “The consensus opinion from all academic breast oncologists is that people should not be switching off atezolizumab if they are responding. They should not be changing their immunotherapy.”

Dr. Lustberg said the announcement had two major points: “don’t start a new patient on atezolizumab,” and the company is “committed” to supplying the drug to patients whose conditions are stable or responding.

Nevertheless, some patients with mTNBC were recently in a state of escalating emotional upset, said one patient advocate.

“The level of panic among those currently on & responding well to Atezo is growing quickly,” tweeted Janice Cowden on Sept. 5, a former nurse living with mTNBC in Bradenton, Fla.

Ms. Cowden explained that “at least 10-20 patients” were “pulled [off the drug by their oncologists] this past week who have been stable/no evidence of disease/no evidence of disease activity on Tecentriq.”

She estimated that as many as 50 patients in the 2,200-member Triple Negative BC Stage 4 Facebook group who have been responding to the drug were abruptly de-prescribed atezolizumab since the Aug. 27 announcement from Genentech.

Many women learned of the change via patient portals or text messaging, not directly from their physicians, Cowden told Medscape Medical News.

Some of the women had been taking atezolizumab for 2-3 years, including those with no evidence of disease, she said. “Finding out that their oncologist was discontinuing a treatment that was working for them has been driving so much anxiety and stress,” Ms. Cowden emphasized.

Most market withdrawals of drugs are related to safety, but that is not the case with atezolizumab, said Sara Horton, MD, of Howard University, Washington. She was speaking at the recent Facebook webinar on atezolizumab and mTNBC that was sponsored by the TNBC Foundation and the Young Survivors Coalition.

In the case of atezolizumab, it was a question about efficacy that prompted the withdrawal. After the indication was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response data, a confirmatory trial set out to show clinical benefit. However, the confirmatory phase 3 IMpassion131 trial did not do so: it found that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk for cancer progression and death in comparison with paclitaxel plus placebo among patients with TNBC with tumors that were positive for programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-L1), as reported by Medscape Medical News.

These results were discussed by the Food and Drug Administration on the first day of a historic 3-day meeting on accelerated approvals in April 2021. Despite the failure of confirmation of clinical benefit, the advisory panel voted 7-2 in favor of keeping the approval in place for atezolizumab in TNBC. At the same time, it urged Genentech to carry out more studies to show that the drug works in this patient population.

The company apparently decided not to do that and instead voluntarily withdrew the application for the indication some 4 months later.

During the recent TNBC Foundation webinar, Genentech official Lauren Davis said that the company sent letters about this decision to atezolizumab-prescribing physicians and included another letter that was to be shared with patients. Ms. Davis had not responded to this news organization’s request to review the communications at the time this article was published.

At the webinar, Ms. Davis did clarify that current atezolizumab patients (who are responding to the drug), who have commercial insurance, and who benefit from Genentech’s copay program will continue to receive the benefit until June 2022.

In its August announcement, Genentech said it decided to withdraw the atezolizumab approval on the basis of the FDA’s assessment of the “current mTNBC treatment landscape and in accordance with the requirements of the accelerated approval program.”

That landscape presumably includes pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which received a full approval for a TNBC indication similar to that of atezolizumab in July. That full approval was based on findings from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed significantly prolonged event-free survival with the pembrolizumab regimen in comparison with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone for previously untreated stage II or III TNBC. Details of these clinical data will be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.
 

Switching the immunotherapy?

Some U.S. oncologists have been telling patients with mTNBC that the atezolizumab withdrawal is “not an issue” because the new full approval of pembrolizumab in this setting will allow prescriptions to be switched, said patient advocate Ms. Cowden.

However, experts have said that no patient who is responding to or whose condition is stable with atezolizumab should switch immunotherapies. “This is a very aggressive disease,” reminded Dr. Lustberg.

Switching the immunotherapies is complicated by the difference in the respective drugs’ companion biomarker assays used to establish the presence of PD-L1.

Dr. Lustberg explained that patients who are not responding to atezolizumab and who now want to try pembrolizumab will have to be assessed with the CTS assay.

“About 22% of the patients who are positive for the atezolizumab biomarker assay SP-142 are not going to be positive for the CTS,” she said.

In other words, about one in four patients with mTNBC who are taking atezolizumab will not qualify for treatment with pembrolizumab.

Rebecca Shatsky, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, echoed those comments in an email to this news organization – and emphatically discouraged switching off atezolizumab (and going on pembrolizumab) if a patient is having success (i.e., stable disease or positive response).

“The two groups don’t always overlap, so it isn’t an easy switch. That’s why if they are already responding, I would NOT have them stop the drug,” she said.

Not every mTNBC patient receiving – and responding to – atezolizumab has had the unfortunate experience of having their prescription canceled.

Johanna Rauhala, of San Francisco, who is a former middle-school teacher and who writes the blog Pink Stinks, has been taking atezolizumab for 2 years. She has had a partial response and now, after taking the immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy (gemcitabine and carboplatin), has stable disease. Currently, she is taking single-agent atezolizumab..

Ms. Rauhala has been living with mTNBC for 5 years. She said in an interview that she was “very surprised and concerned” to learn about Genentech’s withdrawal of its accelerated approval. She said that at her next treatment appointment, she was “probably going to ask the oncology nurse first [about the atezolizumab withdrawal] – because they are the front line, and I will then follow-up with my doctor. But I can’t imagine that they will take away something that is working.”

Dr. Shatsky, Dr. Horton, and Dr. Lunsberg report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Some women with the most-difficult-to-treat form of advanced breast cancer who have positively responded to atezolizumab (Tecentriq) are reporting panic and anxiety because oncologists have suddenly discontinued their prescriptions.

The discontinuance appears to be in reaction to an announcement by the manufacturer (Genentech) in late August that it has voluntarily withdrawn its application for accelerated approval of the drug for use in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).

However, experts stress that discontinuing atezolizumab is not advised if a patient is responding to or is stable on the immune checkpoint inhibitor.

“I think the Genentech announcement has been misinterpreted,” Maryam Lustberg, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “The consensus opinion from all academic breast oncologists is that people should not be switching off atezolizumab if they are responding. They should not be changing their immunotherapy.”

Dr. Lustberg said the announcement had two major points: “don’t start a new patient on atezolizumab,” and the company is “committed” to supplying the drug to patients whose conditions are stable or responding.

Nevertheless, some patients with mTNBC were recently in a state of escalating emotional upset, said one patient advocate.

“The level of panic among those currently on & responding well to Atezo is growing quickly,” tweeted Janice Cowden on Sept. 5, a former nurse living with mTNBC in Bradenton, Fla.

Ms. Cowden explained that “at least 10-20 patients” were “pulled [off the drug by their oncologists] this past week who have been stable/no evidence of disease/no evidence of disease activity on Tecentriq.”

She estimated that as many as 50 patients in the 2,200-member Triple Negative BC Stage 4 Facebook group who have been responding to the drug were abruptly de-prescribed atezolizumab since the Aug. 27 announcement from Genentech.

Many women learned of the change via patient portals or text messaging, not directly from their physicians, Cowden told Medscape Medical News.

Some of the women had been taking atezolizumab for 2-3 years, including those with no evidence of disease, she said. “Finding out that their oncologist was discontinuing a treatment that was working for them has been driving so much anxiety and stress,” Ms. Cowden emphasized.

Most market withdrawals of drugs are related to safety, but that is not the case with atezolizumab, said Sara Horton, MD, of Howard University, Washington. She was speaking at the recent Facebook webinar on atezolizumab and mTNBC that was sponsored by the TNBC Foundation and the Young Survivors Coalition.

In the case of atezolizumab, it was a question about efficacy that prompted the withdrawal. After the indication was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response data, a confirmatory trial set out to show clinical benefit. However, the confirmatory phase 3 IMpassion131 trial did not do so: it found that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk for cancer progression and death in comparison with paclitaxel plus placebo among patients with TNBC with tumors that were positive for programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-L1), as reported by Medscape Medical News.

These results were discussed by the Food and Drug Administration on the first day of a historic 3-day meeting on accelerated approvals in April 2021. Despite the failure of confirmation of clinical benefit, the advisory panel voted 7-2 in favor of keeping the approval in place for atezolizumab in TNBC. At the same time, it urged Genentech to carry out more studies to show that the drug works in this patient population.

The company apparently decided not to do that and instead voluntarily withdrew the application for the indication some 4 months later.

During the recent TNBC Foundation webinar, Genentech official Lauren Davis said that the company sent letters about this decision to atezolizumab-prescribing physicians and included another letter that was to be shared with patients. Ms. Davis had not responded to this news organization’s request to review the communications at the time this article was published.

At the webinar, Ms. Davis did clarify that current atezolizumab patients (who are responding to the drug), who have commercial insurance, and who benefit from Genentech’s copay program will continue to receive the benefit until June 2022.

In its August announcement, Genentech said it decided to withdraw the atezolizumab approval on the basis of the FDA’s assessment of the “current mTNBC treatment landscape and in accordance with the requirements of the accelerated approval program.”

That landscape presumably includes pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which received a full approval for a TNBC indication similar to that of atezolizumab in July. That full approval was based on findings from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed significantly prolonged event-free survival with the pembrolizumab regimen in comparison with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone for previously untreated stage II or III TNBC. Details of these clinical data will be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.
 

Switching the immunotherapy?

Some U.S. oncologists have been telling patients with mTNBC that the atezolizumab withdrawal is “not an issue” because the new full approval of pembrolizumab in this setting will allow prescriptions to be switched, said patient advocate Ms. Cowden.

However, experts have said that no patient who is responding to or whose condition is stable with atezolizumab should switch immunotherapies. “This is a very aggressive disease,” reminded Dr. Lustberg.

Switching the immunotherapies is complicated by the difference in the respective drugs’ companion biomarker assays used to establish the presence of PD-L1.

Dr. Lustberg explained that patients who are not responding to atezolizumab and who now want to try pembrolizumab will have to be assessed with the CTS assay.

“About 22% of the patients who are positive for the atezolizumab biomarker assay SP-142 are not going to be positive for the CTS,” she said.

In other words, about one in four patients with mTNBC who are taking atezolizumab will not qualify for treatment with pembrolizumab.

Rebecca Shatsky, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, echoed those comments in an email to this news organization – and emphatically discouraged switching off atezolizumab (and going on pembrolizumab) if a patient is having success (i.e., stable disease or positive response).

“The two groups don’t always overlap, so it isn’t an easy switch. That’s why if they are already responding, I would NOT have them stop the drug,” she said.

Not every mTNBC patient receiving – and responding to – atezolizumab has had the unfortunate experience of having their prescription canceled.

Johanna Rauhala, of San Francisco, who is a former middle-school teacher and who writes the blog Pink Stinks, has been taking atezolizumab for 2 years. She has had a partial response and now, after taking the immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy (gemcitabine and carboplatin), has stable disease. Currently, she is taking single-agent atezolizumab..

Ms. Rauhala has been living with mTNBC for 5 years. She said in an interview that she was “very surprised and concerned” to learn about Genentech’s withdrawal of its accelerated approval. She said that at her next treatment appointment, she was “probably going to ask the oncology nurse first [about the atezolizumab withdrawal] – because they are the front line, and I will then follow-up with my doctor. But I can’t imagine that they will take away something that is working.”

Dr. Shatsky, Dr. Horton, and Dr. Lunsberg report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Three new cancer drugs have been recommended for approval in Europe, as well as new indications for two already marketed immunotherapies. The positive opinions were issued by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) at its September meeting.

The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.

Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).

Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.

The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.

CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).

Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.

Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.

The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.

The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).

Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.

Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.

The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

Two new indications for already marketed drugs

CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease

Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.

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

Three new cancer drugs have been recommended for approval in Europe, as well as new indications for two already marketed immunotherapies. The positive opinions were issued by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) at its September meeting.

The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.

Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).

Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.

The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.

CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).

Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.

Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.

The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.

The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).

Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.

Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.

The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

Two new indications for already marketed drugs

CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease

Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.

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

Three new cancer drugs have been recommended for approval in Europe, as well as new indications for two already marketed immunotherapies. The positive opinions were issued by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) at its September meeting.

The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.

Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).

Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.

The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.

CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).

Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.

Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.

The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.

The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).

Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.

Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.

The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

Two new indications for already marketed drugs

CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease

Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to mobocertinib (Exkivity, Takeda) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations.

The drug is limited to use in patients whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and who have had the EGFR Exon 20 insertion mutation detected on an FDA-approved test.

Mobocertinib is the first oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically designed to target these mutations, which are less common than the more predominant EGFR mutations in this lung cancer.

“EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC is an underserved cancer that we have been unable to target effectively with traditional EGFR TKIs,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press statement from the maker, Takeda.

“The approval of [mobocertinib] marks another important step forward that provides physicians and their patients with a new targeted oral therapy specifically designed for this patient population that has shown clinically meaningful and sustained responses,” Dr. Jänne added.

According to the company, EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC makes up approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC and is more common in Asian populations compared with Western populations.

The new approval is based on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) results from a phase 1/2 trial consisting of 114 patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC who received prior platinum-based therapy and were treated with the 160-mg dose.

Per an independent review committee, mobocertinib demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 28% and a median DoR of 17.5 months.

Median overall survival was 24 months and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months.

The FDA-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) companion diagnostic for mobocertinib is Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which identifies NSCLC patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.

“NGS testing is critical for these patients, as it can enable more accurate diagnoses compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which detects less than 50% of EGFR Exon 20 insertions,” according to the company.

Results from the phase 1/2 trial used in the FDA approval were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

The most common adverse reactions (greater than 20%) were diarrhea, rash, nausea, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased appetite, paronychia, fatigue, dry skin, and musculoskeletal pain, according to the company.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for QTc prolongation and Torsades de Pointes, and warnings and precautions for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, cardiac toxicity, and diarrhea.

“Patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC have historically faced a unique set of challenges living with a very rare lung cancer that is not only underdiagnosed but also lacking targeted treatment options that can improve response rates,” said Marcia Horn, executive director, Exon 20 Group at the International Cancer Advocacy Network, in the press statement.

The FDA review was conducted under Project Orbis, an FDA initiative that enables concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.

The new drug was also granted priority review and received breakthrough therapy, fast track, and orphan drug designations from the FDA.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to mobocertinib (Exkivity, Takeda) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations.

The drug is limited to use in patients whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and who have had the EGFR Exon 20 insertion mutation detected on an FDA-approved test.

Mobocertinib is the first oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically designed to target these mutations, which are less common than the more predominant EGFR mutations in this lung cancer.

“EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC is an underserved cancer that we have been unable to target effectively with traditional EGFR TKIs,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press statement from the maker, Takeda.

“The approval of [mobocertinib] marks another important step forward that provides physicians and their patients with a new targeted oral therapy specifically designed for this patient population that has shown clinically meaningful and sustained responses,” Dr. Jänne added.

According to the company, EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC makes up approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC and is more common in Asian populations compared with Western populations.

The new approval is based on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) results from a phase 1/2 trial consisting of 114 patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC who received prior platinum-based therapy and were treated with the 160-mg dose.

Per an independent review committee, mobocertinib demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 28% and a median DoR of 17.5 months.

Median overall survival was 24 months and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months.

The FDA-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) companion diagnostic for mobocertinib is Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which identifies NSCLC patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.

“NGS testing is critical for these patients, as it can enable more accurate diagnoses compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which detects less than 50% of EGFR Exon 20 insertions,” according to the company.

Results from the phase 1/2 trial used in the FDA approval were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

The most common adverse reactions (greater than 20%) were diarrhea, rash, nausea, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased appetite, paronychia, fatigue, dry skin, and musculoskeletal pain, according to the company.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for QTc prolongation and Torsades de Pointes, and warnings and precautions for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, cardiac toxicity, and diarrhea.

“Patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC have historically faced a unique set of challenges living with a very rare lung cancer that is not only underdiagnosed but also lacking targeted treatment options that can improve response rates,” said Marcia Horn, executive director, Exon 20 Group at the International Cancer Advocacy Network, in the press statement.

The FDA review was conducted under Project Orbis, an FDA initiative that enables concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.

The new drug was also granted priority review and received breakthrough therapy, fast track, and orphan drug designations from the FDA.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to mobocertinib (Exkivity, Takeda) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations.

The drug is limited to use in patients whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and who have had the EGFR Exon 20 insertion mutation detected on an FDA-approved test.

Mobocertinib is the first oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically designed to target these mutations, which are less common than the more predominant EGFR mutations in this lung cancer.

“EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC is an underserved cancer that we have been unable to target effectively with traditional EGFR TKIs,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press statement from the maker, Takeda.

“The approval of [mobocertinib] marks another important step forward that provides physicians and their patients with a new targeted oral therapy specifically designed for this patient population that has shown clinically meaningful and sustained responses,” Dr. Jänne added.

According to the company, EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC makes up approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC and is more common in Asian populations compared with Western populations.

The new approval is based on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) results from a phase 1/2 trial consisting of 114 patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC who received prior platinum-based therapy and were treated with the 160-mg dose.

Per an independent review committee, mobocertinib demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 28% and a median DoR of 17.5 months.

Median overall survival was 24 months and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months.

The FDA-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) companion diagnostic for mobocertinib is Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which identifies NSCLC patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.

“NGS testing is critical for these patients, as it can enable more accurate diagnoses compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which detects less than 50% of EGFR Exon 20 insertions,” according to the company.

Results from the phase 1/2 trial used in the FDA approval were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

The most common adverse reactions (greater than 20%) were diarrhea, rash, nausea, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased appetite, paronychia, fatigue, dry skin, and musculoskeletal pain, according to the company.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for QTc prolongation and Torsades de Pointes, and warnings and precautions for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, cardiac toxicity, and diarrhea.

“Patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC have historically faced a unique set of challenges living with a very rare lung cancer that is not only underdiagnosed but also lacking targeted treatment options that can improve response rates,” said Marcia Horn, executive director, Exon 20 Group at the International Cancer Advocacy Network, in the press statement.

The FDA review was conducted under Project Orbis, an FDA initiative that enables concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.

The new drug was also granted priority review and received breakthrough therapy, fast track, and orphan drug designations from the FDA.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who have received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen, the drug’s maker BeiGene announced in a press statement.  

The drug works as an inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), which plays a critical role in B-cell–receptor signaling, a driver in the development of marginal zone lymphoma, according to the company.

The new approval comes just 2 weeks after the oral drug received an accelerated approval for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The drug also has an accelerated approval for treating mantle cell lymphoma in patients who have received at least one prior therapy and is being studied in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The latest indication is based on results from two single-arm clinical trials, with overall response rate (ORR) as the primary endpoint.

In the multicenter, phase 2 MAGNOLIA trial, zanubrutinib “demonstrated impressive overall response and complete remission rates, with responses observed in all MZL subtypes,” said Stephen Opat, MBBS, of Monash University in Melbourne, lead principal investigator of the study. “In addition, this next-generation BTK inhibitor was well-tolerated in these patients, with low rate of discontinuation due to adverse reactions.”

In the MAGNOLIA trial, 66 patients with R/R MZL who had received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen were treated with zanubrutinib. Among the patients were 26 with extranodal subtype, 26 with nodal subtype, 12 with splenic subtype, and 4 with unknown subtype.

The ORR was 56% with a complete response rate of 20%, based on CT scan assessment.

In addition, the ORR was 67% with a complete response rate of 26%, based on PET-CT scan assessment.

The median duration of response (DoR) was not reached at the median follow-up time of 8.3 months, with 85% of responders still in remission at 12 months. Responses were observed in all MZL subtypes.

In an earlier, phase 1/2 trial of the agent, 20 patients were evaluated, including 9 with extranodal subtype, 5 with nodal subtype, and 6 with splenic subtype. Based on CT scan assessment, the ORR was 80% with a complete remission rate of 20%. The median DoR was not reached at the median follow-up time of 31.4 months, with 72% of responders still in remission at 12 months.

The most common (≥30%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, in the pooled safety population of 847 patients were decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, hemorrhage, decreased lymphocyte count, rash, and musculoskeletal pain, said the company.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who have received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen, the drug’s maker BeiGene announced in a press statement.  

The drug works as an inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), which plays a critical role in B-cell–receptor signaling, a driver in the development of marginal zone lymphoma, according to the company.

The new approval comes just 2 weeks after the oral drug received an accelerated approval for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The drug also has an accelerated approval for treating mantle cell lymphoma in patients who have received at least one prior therapy and is being studied in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The latest indication is based on results from two single-arm clinical trials, with overall response rate (ORR) as the primary endpoint.

In the multicenter, phase 2 MAGNOLIA trial, zanubrutinib “demonstrated impressive overall response and complete remission rates, with responses observed in all MZL subtypes,” said Stephen Opat, MBBS, of Monash University in Melbourne, lead principal investigator of the study. “In addition, this next-generation BTK inhibitor was well-tolerated in these patients, with low rate of discontinuation due to adverse reactions.”

In the MAGNOLIA trial, 66 patients with R/R MZL who had received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen were treated with zanubrutinib. Among the patients were 26 with extranodal subtype, 26 with nodal subtype, 12 with splenic subtype, and 4 with unknown subtype.

The ORR was 56% with a complete response rate of 20%, based on CT scan assessment.

In addition, the ORR was 67% with a complete response rate of 26%, based on PET-CT scan assessment.

The median duration of response (DoR) was not reached at the median follow-up time of 8.3 months, with 85% of responders still in remission at 12 months. Responses were observed in all MZL subtypes.

In an earlier, phase 1/2 trial of the agent, 20 patients were evaluated, including 9 with extranodal subtype, 5 with nodal subtype, and 6 with splenic subtype. Based on CT scan assessment, the ORR was 80% with a complete remission rate of 20%. The median DoR was not reached at the median follow-up time of 31.4 months, with 72% of responders still in remission at 12 months.

The most common (≥30%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, in the pooled safety population of 847 patients were decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, hemorrhage, decreased lymphocyte count, rash, and musculoskeletal pain, said the company.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who have received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen, the drug’s maker BeiGene announced in a press statement.  

The drug works as an inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), which plays a critical role in B-cell–receptor signaling, a driver in the development of marginal zone lymphoma, according to the company.

The new approval comes just 2 weeks after the oral drug received an accelerated approval for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The drug also has an accelerated approval for treating mantle cell lymphoma in patients who have received at least one prior therapy and is being studied in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The latest indication is based on results from two single-arm clinical trials, with overall response rate (ORR) as the primary endpoint.

In the multicenter, phase 2 MAGNOLIA trial, zanubrutinib “demonstrated impressive overall response and complete remission rates, with responses observed in all MZL subtypes,” said Stephen Opat, MBBS, of Monash University in Melbourne, lead principal investigator of the study. “In addition, this next-generation BTK inhibitor was well-tolerated in these patients, with low rate of discontinuation due to adverse reactions.”

In the MAGNOLIA trial, 66 patients with R/R MZL who had received at least one anti-CD20–based regimen were treated with zanubrutinib. Among the patients were 26 with extranodal subtype, 26 with nodal subtype, 12 with splenic subtype, and 4 with unknown subtype.

The ORR was 56% with a complete response rate of 20%, based on CT scan assessment.

In addition, the ORR was 67% with a complete response rate of 26%, based on PET-CT scan assessment.

The median duration of response (DoR) was not reached at the median follow-up time of 8.3 months, with 85% of responders still in remission at 12 months. Responses were observed in all MZL subtypes.

In an earlier, phase 1/2 trial of the agent, 20 patients were evaluated, including 9 with extranodal subtype, 5 with nodal subtype, and 6 with splenic subtype. Based on CT scan assessment, the ORR was 80% with a complete remission rate of 20%. The median DoR was not reached at the median follow-up time of 31.4 months, with 72% of responders still in remission at 12 months.

The most common (≥30%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, in the pooled safety population of 847 patients were decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, hemorrhage, decreased lymphocyte count, rash, and musculoskeletal pain, said the company.

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

Nearly 80% of men with metastatic prostate cancer died from their malignancy, according to a retrospective cohort study involving 26,000-plus American men diagnosed with advanced disease in roughly the last 20 years.

The findings fill an information gap because, remarkably, “data are lacking” on causes of death among men whose prostate cancer has spread to other sites, say lead author Ahmed Elmehrath, MD, of Cairo University, Egypt, and colleagues.

“It was an important realization by our team that prostate cancer was the cause of death in 78% of patients,” said senior author Omar Alhalabi, MD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an email.

“Most patients with metastatic prostate cancer die from it, rather than other possible causes of death,” confirm Samuel Merriel, MSc, Tanimola Martins, PhD, and Sarah Bailey, PhD, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, in an accompanying editorial. The study was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

The findings represent the near opposite of a commonly held – and comforting – belief about early-stage disease: “You die with prostate cancer, not from it.”

That old saying is articulated in various ways, such as this from the Prostate Cancer Foundation: “We can confirm that there are those prostate cancers a man may die with and not of, while others are very aggressive.” The American Cancer Society says this: “Prostate cancer can be a serious disease, but most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die from it.”

However, these commonplace comments do not cover metastatic disease, which is what the authors of the new study decided to focus on.  

The team used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database to gather a sample of 26,168 U.S. men who received a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer from January 2000 to December 2016. They then analyzed the data in 2020 and found that 16,732 men (64%) had died during the follow-up period.

The majority of these deaths (77.8%) were from prostate cancer, 5.5% were from other cancers, and 16.7% were from noncancer causes, including cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cerebrovascular diseases.

Senior author Dr. Alhalabi acknowledged a limitation in these findings – that the SEER database relies on causes of death extracted from death certificates. “Death certificates have limited granularity in terms of the details they can contain about the cause of death and also have reporting bias,” he said.

Most of the prostate cancer deaths (59%) occurred within 2 years. The 5-year overall survival rate in the study group was 26%.

The deadliness of metastatic disease “reinforces the need for innovations to promote early-stage diagnosis,” comment the editorialists. Striking a hopeful note, they also say that “new tests for prostate cancer detection may reduce the proportion of patients who receive a diagnosis at a late stage.”
 

Death from other causes

The mean age at metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis in the study was roughly 71 years. Most of the cohort was White (74.5%) and had a diagnosis of stage M1b metastatic prostate cancer (72.7%), which means the cancer had spread to the bones.

Among men in the cohort, the rates of death from septicemia, suicide, accidents, COPD, and cerebrovascular diseases were significantly increased compared with the general U.S. male population, the team observes.

Thus, the study authors were concerned with not only with death from metastatic prostate cancer but death from other causes.

That concern is rooted in the established fact that there is now improved survival among patients with prostate cancer in the U.S., including among men with advanced disease. “Patients tend to live long enough after a prostate cancer diagnosis for non–cancer-related comorbidities to be associated with their overall survival,” they write.

The editorialists agree: Prostate cancer “has a high long-term survival rate compared with almost all other cancer types and signals the need for greater holistic care for patients.”

As noted above, cardiovascular diseases were the most common cause of nonprostate cancer–related deaths in the new study.

As in the management of other cancers, there is concern among clinicians and researchers about the cardiotoxic effects of prostate cancer treatments.

The study authors point to a 2017 analysis that showed that men with prostate cancer and no prior cardiac disease had greater risk of heart failure after taking androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a common treatment used when the disease recurs after definitive treatment. Another study suggested an association between cardiotoxic effects of ADT and myocardial infarction regardless of medical history in general.

The authors of the current study say that such findings highlight “the importance of multidisciplinary care for such patients and the role of primary care physicians in optimizing cardiovascular risk prevention and providing early referrals to cardiologists.”

Further, the team says that tailoring “ADT to each patient’s needs may be associated with improved survival, especially for patients with factors associated with cardiovascular disease.”

Who should lead the way in multidisciplinary care? “The answer probably is case-by-case,” said Dr. Alhalabi, adding that it might depend on the presence of underlying morbidities such as cardiovascular disease and COPD.

“It is also important for the oncologist (‘the gatekeeper’) to try to mitigate the potential metabolic effects of hormonal deprivation therapy such as weight gain, decreased muscle mass, hyperlipidemia, etc.,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 80% of men with metastatic prostate cancer died from their malignancy, according to a retrospective cohort study involving 26,000-plus American men diagnosed with advanced disease in roughly the last 20 years.

The findings fill an information gap because, remarkably, “data are lacking” on causes of death among men whose prostate cancer has spread to other sites, say lead author Ahmed Elmehrath, MD, of Cairo University, Egypt, and colleagues.

“It was an important realization by our team that prostate cancer was the cause of death in 78% of patients,” said senior author Omar Alhalabi, MD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an email.

“Most patients with metastatic prostate cancer die from it, rather than other possible causes of death,” confirm Samuel Merriel, MSc, Tanimola Martins, PhD, and Sarah Bailey, PhD, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, in an accompanying editorial. The study was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

The findings represent the near opposite of a commonly held – and comforting – belief about early-stage disease: “You die with prostate cancer, not from it.”

That old saying is articulated in various ways, such as this from the Prostate Cancer Foundation: “We can confirm that there are those prostate cancers a man may die with and not of, while others are very aggressive.” The American Cancer Society says this: “Prostate cancer can be a serious disease, but most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die from it.”

However, these commonplace comments do not cover metastatic disease, which is what the authors of the new study decided to focus on.  

The team used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database to gather a sample of 26,168 U.S. men who received a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer from January 2000 to December 2016. They then analyzed the data in 2020 and found that 16,732 men (64%) had died during the follow-up period.

The majority of these deaths (77.8%) were from prostate cancer, 5.5% were from other cancers, and 16.7% were from noncancer causes, including cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cerebrovascular diseases.

Senior author Dr. Alhalabi acknowledged a limitation in these findings – that the SEER database relies on causes of death extracted from death certificates. “Death certificates have limited granularity in terms of the details they can contain about the cause of death and also have reporting bias,” he said.

Most of the prostate cancer deaths (59%) occurred within 2 years. The 5-year overall survival rate in the study group was 26%.

The deadliness of metastatic disease “reinforces the need for innovations to promote early-stage diagnosis,” comment the editorialists. Striking a hopeful note, they also say that “new tests for prostate cancer detection may reduce the proportion of patients who receive a diagnosis at a late stage.”
 

Death from other causes

The mean age at metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis in the study was roughly 71 years. Most of the cohort was White (74.5%) and had a diagnosis of stage M1b metastatic prostate cancer (72.7%), which means the cancer had spread to the bones.

Among men in the cohort, the rates of death from septicemia, suicide, accidents, COPD, and cerebrovascular diseases were significantly increased compared with the general U.S. male population, the team observes.

Thus, the study authors were concerned with not only with death from metastatic prostate cancer but death from other causes.

That concern is rooted in the established fact that there is now improved survival among patients with prostate cancer in the U.S., including among men with advanced disease. “Patients tend to live long enough after a prostate cancer diagnosis for non–cancer-related comorbidities to be associated with their overall survival,” they write.

The editorialists agree: Prostate cancer “has a high long-term survival rate compared with almost all other cancer types and signals the need for greater holistic care for patients.”

As noted above, cardiovascular diseases were the most common cause of nonprostate cancer–related deaths in the new study.

As in the management of other cancers, there is concern among clinicians and researchers about the cardiotoxic effects of prostate cancer treatments.

The study authors point to a 2017 analysis that showed that men with prostate cancer and no prior cardiac disease had greater risk of heart failure after taking androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a common treatment used when the disease recurs after definitive treatment. Another study suggested an association between cardiotoxic effects of ADT and myocardial infarction regardless of medical history in general.

The authors of the current study say that such findings highlight “the importance of multidisciplinary care for such patients and the role of primary care physicians in optimizing cardiovascular risk prevention and providing early referrals to cardiologists.”

Further, the team says that tailoring “ADT to each patient’s needs may be associated with improved survival, especially for patients with factors associated with cardiovascular disease.”

Who should lead the way in multidisciplinary care? “The answer probably is case-by-case,” said Dr. Alhalabi, adding that it might depend on the presence of underlying morbidities such as cardiovascular disease and COPD.

“It is also important for the oncologist (‘the gatekeeper’) to try to mitigate the potential metabolic effects of hormonal deprivation therapy such as weight gain, decreased muscle mass, hyperlipidemia, etc.,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 80% of men with metastatic prostate cancer died from their malignancy, according to a retrospective cohort study involving 26,000-plus American men diagnosed with advanced disease in roughly the last 20 years.

The findings fill an information gap because, remarkably, “data are lacking” on causes of death among men whose prostate cancer has spread to other sites, say lead author Ahmed Elmehrath, MD, of Cairo University, Egypt, and colleagues.

“It was an important realization by our team that prostate cancer was the cause of death in 78% of patients,” said senior author Omar Alhalabi, MD, of University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, in an email.

“Most patients with metastatic prostate cancer die from it, rather than other possible causes of death,” confirm Samuel Merriel, MSc, Tanimola Martins, PhD, and Sarah Bailey, PhD, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, in an accompanying editorial. The study was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

The findings represent the near opposite of a commonly held – and comforting – belief about early-stage disease: “You die with prostate cancer, not from it.”

That old saying is articulated in various ways, such as this from the Prostate Cancer Foundation: “We can confirm that there are those prostate cancers a man may die with and not of, while others are very aggressive.” The American Cancer Society says this: “Prostate cancer can be a serious disease, but most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die from it.”

However, these commonplace comments do not cover metastatic disease, which is what the authors of the new study decided to focus on.  

The team used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database to gather a sample of 26,168 U.S. men who received a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer from January 2000 to December 2016. They then analyzed the data in 2020 and found that 16,732 men (64%) had died during the follow-up period.

The majority of these deaths (77.8%) were from prostate cancer, 5.5% were from other cancers, and 16.7% were from noncancer causes, including cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cerebrovascular diseases.

Senior author Dr. Alhalabi acknowledged a limitation in these findings – that the SEER database relies on causes of death extracted from death certificates. “Death certificates have limited granularity in terms of the details they can contain about the cause of death and also have reporting bias,” he said.

Most of the prostate cancer deaths (59%) occurred within 2 years. The 5-year overall survival rate in the study group was 26%.

The deadliness of metastatic disease “reinforces the need for innovations to promote early-stage diagnosis,” comment the editorialists. Striking a hopeful note, they also say that “new tests for prostate cancer detection may reduce the proportion of patients who receive a diagnosis at a late stage.”
 

Death from other causes

The mean age at metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis in the study was roughly 71 years. Most of the cohort was White (74.5%) and had a diagnosis of stage M1b metastatic prostate cancer (72.7%), which means the cancer had spread to the bones.

Among men in the cohort, the rates of death from septicemia, suicide, accidents, COPD, and cerebrovascular diseases were significantly increased compared with the general U.S. male population, the team observes.

Thus, the study authors were concerned with not only with death from metastatic prostate cancer but death from other causes.

That concern is rooted in the established fact that there is now improved survival among patients with prostate cancer in the U.S., including among men with advanced disease. “Patients tend to live long enough after a prostate cancer diagnosis for non–cancer-related comorbidities to be associated with their overall survival,” they write.

The editorialists agree: Prostate cancer “has a high long-term survival rate compared with almost all other cancer types and signals the need for greater holistic care for patients.”

As noted above, cardiovascular diseases were the most common cause of nonprostate cancer–related deaths in the new study.

As in the management of other cancers, there is concern among clinicians and researchers about the cardiotoxic effects of prostate cancer treatments.

The study authors point to a 2017 analysis that showed that men with prostate cancer and no prior cardiac disease had greater risk of heart failure after taking androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a common treatment used when the disease recurs after definitive treatment. Another study suggested an association between cardiotoxic effects of ADT and myocardial infarction regardless of medical history in general.

The authors of the current study say that such findings highlight “the importance of multidisciplinary care for such patients and the role of primary care physicians in optimizing cardiovascular risk prevention and providing early referrals to cardiologists.”

Further, the team says that tailoring “ADT to each patient’s needs may be associated with improved survival, especially for patients with factors associated with cardiovascular disease.”

Who should lead the way in multidisciplinary care? “The answer probably is case-by-case,” said Dr. Alhalabi, adding that it might depend on the presence of underlying morbidities such as cardiovascular disease and COPD.

“It is also important for the oncologist (‘the gatekeeper’) to try to mitigate the potential metabolic effects of hormonal deprivation therapy such as weight gain, decreased muscle mass, hyperlipidemia, etc.,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) capsules for use in the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to an approval letter from the agency to BeiGene, the drug’s maker.

The FDA stipulated that the company conduct an additional clinical trial (rather than an observational study) to assess the “known serious risk of second primary malignancies” associated with use of zanubrutinib. The study should further characterize the clinical benefit and safety of zanubrutinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed WM with MYD88 mutation, the agency said.

The drug, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), previously received accelerated approval for use in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received one prior therapy. It is also being studied for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The new approval is primarily based on results from ASPEN, a randomized, active control, open-label trial that compared zanubrutinib and ibrutinib.

The ASPEN trial provided “compelling evidence” that zanubrutinib is a highly active BTK inhibitor in WM and that it showed improved tolerability across a number of clinically important side effects in comparison with the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, said study investigator Steven Treon, MD, PhD, director of the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “The approval of [zanubrutinib] provides an important new option for targeted therapy in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” he added in a company press statement.

The recommended dosage is 160 mg orally twice daily or 320 mg orally once; the drug should be swallowed whole with water with or without food.

In ASPEN, all patients had MYD88 mutation WM. Patients in cohort 1 (n = 201) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 82% of patients had relapsed/refractory disease.

The major efficacy outcome was the response rate, defined as partial response or better (i.e., partial response, very good partial response, and complete response), as determined on the basis of standard consensus response criteria from the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM-6) criteria.

The drugs had nearly identical response rates (roughly 77%). There were no complete responses with either drug. However, zanubrutinib had twice the rate of very good partial responses compared with ibrutinib (15.7% vs. 7.1%). In addition, on the basis of modified IWWM-6 criteria, the very good partial response rate was 28% with zanubrutinib, compared to 19% with ibrutinib.

An additional efficacy outcome measure was duration of response, which was measured by the percentage of patients who were event free at 12 months. Zanubrutinib bested ibrutinib in this measure (94.4% vs. 87.9%).

The safety of zanubrutinib was also investigated in the ASPEN trial. Among patients who received zanubrutinib, 93% were exposed for 6 months or longer, and 89% were exposed for longer than 1 year. In cohort 1, serious adverse reactions occurred in 44% of patients who received zanubrutinib. Serious adverse reactions that occurred in > 2% of patients included influenza (3%), pneumonia (4%), neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (3%), hemorrhage (4%), pyrexia (3%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).

In the FDA’s prescribing information for the drug, which includes approved indications and pooled safety data, the most common adverse reactions for zanubrutinib (≥ 20%) are listed as decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, rash, hemorrhage, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, bruising, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) capsules for use in the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to an approval letter from the agency to BeiGene, the drug’s maker.

The FDA stipulated that the company conduct an additional clinical trial (rather than an observational study) to assess the “known serious risk of second primary malignancies” associated with use of zanubrutinib. The study should further characterize the clinical benefit and safety of zanubrutinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed WM with MYD88 mutation, the agency said.

The drug, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), previously received accelerated approval for use in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received one prior therapy. It is also being studied for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The new approval is primarily based on results from ASPEN, a randomized, active control, open-label trial that compared zanubrutinib and ibrutinib.

The ASPEN trial provided “compelling evidence” that zanubrutinib is a highly active BTK inhibitor in WM and that it showed improved tolerability across a number of clinically important side effects in comparison with the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, said study investigator Steven Treon, MD, PhD, director of the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “The approval of [zanubrutinib] provides an important new option for targeted therapy in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” he added in a company press statement.

The recommended dosage is 160 mg orally twice daily or 320 mg orally once; the drug should be swallowed whole with water with or without food.

In ASPEN, all patients had MYD88 mutation WM. Patients in cohort 1 (n = 201) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 82% of patients had relapsed/refractory disease.

The major efficacy outcome was the response rate, defined as partial response or better (i.e., partial response, very good partial response, and complete response), as determined on the basis of standard consensus response criteria from the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM-6) criteria.

The drugs had nearly identical response rates (roughly 77%). There were no complete responses with either drug. However, zanubrutinib had twice the rate of very good partial responses compared with ibrutinib (15.7% vs. 7.1%). In addition, on the basis of modified IWWM-6 criteria, the very good partial response rate was 28% with zanubrutinib, compared to 19% with ibrutinib.

An additional efficacy outcome measure was duration of response, which was measured by the percentage of patients who were event free at 12 months. Zanubrutinib bested ibrutinib in this measure (94.4% vs. 87.9%).

The safety of zanubrutinib was also investigated in the ASPEN trial. Among patients who received zanubrutinib, 93% were exposed for 6 months or longer, and 89% were exposed for longer than 1 year. In cohort 1, serious adverse reactions occurred in 44% of patients who received zanubrutinib. Serious adverse reactions that occurred in > 2% of patients included influenza (3%), pneumonia (4%), neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (3%), hemorrhage (4%), pyrexia (3%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).

In the FDA’s prescribing information for the drug, which includes approved indications and pooled safety data, the most common adverse reactions for zanubrutinib (≥ 20%) are listed as decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, rash, hemorrhage, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, bruising, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) capsules for use in the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma, according to an approval letter from the agency to BeiGene, the drug’s maker.

The FDA stipulated that the company conduct an additional clinical trial (rather than an observational study) to assess the “known serious risk of second primary malignancies” associated with use of zanubrutinib. The study should further characterize the clinical benefit and safety of zanubrutinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed WM with MYD88 mutation, the agency said.

The drug, which is a small-molecule inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK), previously received accelerated approval for use in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received one prior therapy. It is also being studied for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The new approval is primarily based on results from ASPEN, a randomized, active control, open-label trial that compared zanubrutinib and ibrutinib.

The ASPEN trial provided “compelling evidence” that zanubrutinib is a highly active BTK inhibitor in WM and that it showed improved tolerability across a number of clinically important side effects in comparison with the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, said study investigator Steven Treon, MD, PhD, director of the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “The approval of [zanubrutinib] provides an important new option for targeted therapy in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia,” he added in a company press statement.

The recommended dosage is 160 mg orally twice daily or 320 mg orally once; the drug should be swallowed whole with water with or without food.

In ASPEN, all patients had MYD88 mutation WM. Patients in cohort 1 (n = 201) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib 420 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A total of 82% of patients had relapsed/refractory disease.

The major efficacy outcome was the response rate, defined as partial response or better (i.e., partial response, very good partial response, and complete response), as determined on the basis of standard consensus response criteria from the International Workshop on Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia (IWWM-6) criteria.

The drugs had nearly identical response rates (roughly 77%). There were no complete responses with either drug. However, zanubrutinib had twice the rate of very good partial responses compared with ibrutinib (15.7% vs. 7.1%). In addition, on the basis of modified IWWM-6 criteria, the very good partial response rate was 28% with zanubrutinib, compared to 19% with ibrutinib.

An additional efficacy outcome measure was duration of response, which was measured by the percentage of patients who were event free at 12 months. Zanubrutinib bested ibrutinib in this measure (94.4% vs. 87.9%).

The safety of zanubrutinib was also investigated in the ASPEN trial. Among patients who received zanubrutinib, 93% were exposed for 6 months or longer, and 89% were exposed for longer than 1 year. In cohort 1, serious adverse reactions occurred in 44% of patients who received zanubrutinib. Serious adverse reactions that occurred in > 2% of patients included influenza (3%), pneumonia (4%), neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (3%), hemorrhage (4%), pyrexia (3%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).

In the FDA’s prescribing information for the drug, which includes approved indications and pooled safety data, the most common adverse reactions for zanubrutinib (≥ 20%) are listed as decreased neutrophil count, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased platelet count, rash, hemorrhage, musculoskeletal pain, decreased hemoglobin, bruising, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 20 issued a new safety communication about the use of robotically assisted mastectomy, warning patients and physicians that the safety and effectiveness of such devices have not been established in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also called out robotically assisted surgical (RAS) device use in the United States that lacks proper federal oversight.

“The FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted” with RAS devices in breast cancer “without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the agency said.

The new advisory comes 4 weeks after a Medscape Medical News exclusive story on a set of clinical trials recently underway using RAS devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, both prophylactically and as a breast cancer treatment.

The report found that investigators are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning in 2019 from the FDA that those outcomes are important. 

“Congratulations to the press on doing its job well and informing government. I think this [safety communication] is a direct result of Medscape following up on this issue,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a patient advocate from Philadelphia. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania.

In reviewing the FDA’s new warning, Dr. Noorchashm pointed out that the agency also stated unequivocally – after previously hinting – that any study of robotic mastectomy “must include monitoring of long-term clinical outcomes” such as cancer recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival.

That’s a change in approach – previously the FDA has typically approved/cleared RAS devices for use in cancer surgery based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care) and had no requirement for cancer-related outcomes data.

“This [new] advisory reiterates the need for a clear focus on primary oncologic outcomes to, at the very least, demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic assisted surgical devices for performing mastectomy procedures,” said Dr. Noorchashm.

In a 2019 warning about robotic mastectomy, the FDA suggested that it would require oncologic measures moving forward, saying that it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robotic devices in women’s cancer “would be supported” by long-term cancer outcomes. But it stopped short of publicly saying so. The new advisory changes that.
 

Direct comparison with traditional mastectomy needed

There are safety concerns with robotic mastectomy. Experts question whether a surgeon can easily remove a breast tumor in one piece through the small incision (a selling point of the robot). If the tissue cannot be removed in one piece, cancer fragments may be left behind.

As a result, a randomized trial with traditional open mastectomy as a comparator is needed, Dr. Noorchashm stressed. The current batch of clinical trials in the United States are all single-arm studies and as such are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Julie Margenthaler, MD, a breast surgeon at Washington University in St Louis, also noted the importance of a randomized trial.

“I feel strongly that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be performed in the setting of a well-designed clinical trial and that oncologic outcomes should be a primary or secondary endpoint analysis as part of that trial,” she said in an email.

Intuitive Surgical, a California-based manufacturer of robotic devices in health care and a pioneer in robot-assisted surgery, is funding one of the current clinical trials of robotic mastectomy in the United States – a single-arm, five-center trial examining use in the prophylactic setting. The two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

This news organization previously asked the company, which manufactures the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment, if it planned to conduct a randomized trial.

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

The new FDA requirement for long-term oncologic outcomes also in part arises from “diminished long-term survival” that was associated with robotic surgery and other minimally invasive surgery for hysterectomy related to cervical cancer.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 20 issued a new safety communication about the use of robotically assisted mastectomy, warning patients and physicians that the safety and effectiveness of such devices have not been established in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also called out robotically assisted surgical (RAS) device use in the United States that lacks proper federal oversight.

“The FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted” with RAS devices in breast cancer “without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the agency said.

The new advisory comes 4 weeks after a Medscape Medical News exclusive story on a set of clinical trials recently underway using RAS devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, both prophylactically and as a breast cancer treatment.

The report found that investigators are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning in 2019 from the FDA that those outcomes are important. 

“Congratulations to the press on doing its job well and informing government. I think this [safety communication] is a direct result of Medscape following up on this issue,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a patient advocate from Philadelphia. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania.

In reviewing the FDA’s new warning, Dr. Noorchashm pointed out that the agency also stated unequivocally – after previously hinting – that any study of robotic mastectomy “must include monitoring of long-term clinical outcomes” such as cancer recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival.

That’s a change in approach – previously the FDA has typically approved/cleared RAS devices for use in cancer surgery based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care) and had no requirement for cancer-related outcomes data.

“This [new] advisory reiterates the need for a clear focus on primary oncologic outcomes to, at the very least, demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic assisted surgical devices for performing mastectomy procedures,” said Dr. Noorchashm.

In a 2019 warning about robotic mastectomy, the FDA suggested that it would require oncologic measures moving forward, saying that it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robotic devices in women’s cancer “would be supported” by long-term cancer outcomes. But it stopped short of publicly saying so. The new advisory changes that.
 

Direct comparison with traditional mastectomy needed

There are safety concerns with robotic mastectomy. Experts question whether a surgeon can easily remove a breast tumor in one piece through the small incision (a selling point of the robot). If the tissue cannot be removed in one piece, cancer fragments may be left behind.

As a result, a randomized trial with traditional open mastectomy as a comparator is needed, Dr. Noorchashm stressed. The current batch of clinical trials in the United States are all single-arm studies and as such are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Julie Margenthaler, MD, a breast surgeon at Washington University in St Louis, also noted the importance of a randomized trial.

“I feel strongly that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be performed in the setting of a well-designed clinical trial and that oncologic outcomes should be a primary or secondary endpoint analysis as part of that trial,” she said in an email.

Intuitive Surgical, a California-based manufacturer of robotic devices in health care and a pioneer in robot-assisted surgery, is funding one of the current clinical trials of robotic mastectomy in the United States – a single-arm, five-center trial examining use in the prophylactic setting. The two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

This news organization previously asked the company, which manufactures the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment, if it planned to conduct a randomized trial.

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

The new FDA requirement for long-term oncologic outcomes also in part arises from “diminished long-term survival” that was associated with robotic surgery and other minimally invasive surgery for hysterectomy related to cervical cancer.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 20 issued a new safety communication about the use of robotically assisted mastectomy, warning patients and physicians that the safety and effectiveness of such devices have not been established in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also called out robotically assisted surgical (RAS) device use in the United States that lacks proper federal oversight.

“The FDA is aware of allegations that clinical studies are being conducted” with RAS devices in breast cancer “without the FDA oversight required for such significant risk studies,” the agency said.

The new advisory comes 4 weeks after a Medscape Medical News exclusive story on a set of clinical trials recently underway using RAS devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, both prophylactically and as a breast cancer treatment.

The report found that investigators are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning in 2019 from the FDA that those outcomes are important. 

“Congratulations to the press on doing its job well and informing government. I think this [safety communication] is a direct result of Medscape following up on this issue,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, a patient advocate from Philadelphia. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania.

In reviewing the FDA’s new warning, Dr. Noorchashm pointed out that the agency also stated unequivocally – after previously hinting – that any study of robotic mastectomy “must include monitoring of long-term clinical outcomes” such as cancer recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival.

That’s a change in approach – previously the FDA has typically approved/cleared RAS devices for use in cancer surgery based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care) and had no requirement for cancer-related outcomes data.

“This [new] advisory reiterates the need for a clear focus on primary oncologic outcomes to, at the very least, demonstrate the noninferiority of robotic assisted surgical devices for performing mastectomy procedures,” said Dr. Noorchashm.

In a 2019 warning about robotic mastectomy, the FDA suggested that it would require oncologic measures moving forward, saying that it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robotic devices in women’s cancer “would be supported” by long-term cancer outcomes. But it stopped short of publicly saying so. The new advisory changes that.
 

Direct comparison with traditional mastectomy needed

There are safety concerns with robotic mastectomy. Experts question whether a surgeon can easily remove a breast tumor in one piece through the small incision (a selling point of the robot). If the tissue cannot be removed in one piece, cancer fragments may be left behind.

As a result, a randomized trial with traditional open mastectomy as a comparator is needed, Dr. Noorchashm stressed. The current batch of clinical trials in the United States are all single-arm studies and as such are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Julie Margenthaler, MD, a breast surgeon at Washington University in St Louis, also noted the importance of a randomized trial.

“I feel strongly that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be performed in the setting of a well-designed clinical trial and that oncologic outcomes should be a primary or secondary endpoint analysis as part of that trial,” she said in an email.

Intuitive Surgical, a California-based manufacturer of robotic devices in health care and a pioneer in robot-assisted surgery, is funding one of the current clinical trials of robotic mastectomy in the United States – a single-arm, five-center trial examining use in the prophylactic setting. The two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

This news organization previously asked the company, which manufactures the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment, if it planned to conduct a randomized trial.

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

The new FDA requirement for long-term oncologic outcomes also in part arises from “diminished long-term survival” that was associated with robotic surgery and other minimally invasive surgery for hysterectomy related to cervical cancer.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved belzutifan (Welireg) for adult patients with von Hippel–Lindau disease (VHL) who require therapy for associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC), central nervous system hemangioblastomas, or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) that do not require immediate surgery.

Belzutifan is a selective small-molecule inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor and a first-in-class drug.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the ongoing Study 004, an open-label clinical trial involving 61 patients with VHL-associated RCC with at least one measurable solid tumor localized to the kidney. Enrolled patients had other VHL-associated tumors, including CNS hemangioblastomas and pNETs.

Patients received belzutifan 120 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate, which was the study’s primary endpoint, was 49% in patients with VHL-associated RCC. Additional efficacy endpoints included duration of response (DoR), which was not reached. So far, 56% of responders had DoR of at least 12 months. The median time to response was 8 months.

Among the patients in the study with other VHL-associated non-RCC tumors, 24 patients with CNS hemangioblastomas had an ORR of 63%, and 12 patients with pNETs had an ORR of 83%. Median DoR was not reached,with 73% and 50% of patients having response durations of at least 12 months for CNS hemangioblastomas and pNET, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20% of patients), according to the FDA, were decreased hemoglobin, anemia, fatigue, increased creatinine, headache, dizziness, increased glucose, and nausea.

Notably, anemia and hypoxia from belzutifan use can be severe. In Study 004, anemia occurred in 90% of patients and 7% had grade 3 anemia. Patients should be transfused as clinically indicated. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia are not recommended in patients treated with belzutifan. In Study 004, hypoxia occurred in 1.6% of patients.

Belzutifan can render some hormonal contraceptives ineffective, and belzutifan exposure during pregnancy can cause embryo-fetal harm; see full prescribing information for Welireg.

This review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence, and used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the entire clinical application. The application was granted priority review by the FDA.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved belzutifan (Welireg) for adult patients with von Hippel–Lindau disease (VHL) who require therapy for associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC), central nervous system hemangioblastomas, or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) that do not require immediate surgery.

Belzutifan is a selective small-molecule inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor and a first-in-class drug.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the ongoing Study 004, an open-label clinical trial involving 61 patients with VHL-associated RCC with at least one measurable solid tumor localized to the kidney. Enrolled patients had other VHL-associated tumors, including CNS hemangioblastomas and pNETs.

Patients received belzutifan 120 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate, which was the study’s primary endpoint, was 49% in patients with VHL-associated RCC. Additional efficacy endpoints included duration of response (DoR), which was not reached. So far, 56% of responders had DoR of at least 12 months. The median time to response was 8 months.

Among the patients in the study with other VHL-associated non-RCC tumors, 24 patients with CNS hemangioblastomas had an ORR of 63%, and 12 patients with pNETs had an ORR of 83%. Median DoR was not reached,with 73% and 50% of patients having response durations of at least 12 months for CNS hemangioblastomas and pNET, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20% of patients), according to the FDA, were decreased hemoglobin, anemia, fatigue, increased creatinine, headache, dizziness, increased glucose, and nausea.

Notably, anemia and hypoxia from belzutifan use can be severe. In Study 004, anemia occurred in 90% of patients and 7% had grade 3 anemia. Patients should be transfused as clinically indicated. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia are not recommended in patients treated with belzutifan. In Study 004, hypoxia occurred in 1.6% of patients.

Belzutifan can render some hormonal contraceptives ineffective, and belzutifan exposure during pregnancy can cause embryo-fetal harm; see full prescribing information for Welireg.

This review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence, and used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the entire clinical application. The application was granted priority review by the FDA.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved belzutifan (Welireg) for adult patients with von Hippel–Lindau disease (VHL) who require therapy for associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC), central nervous system hemangioblastomas, or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) that do not require immediate surgery.

Belzutifan is a selective small-molecule inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor and a first-in-class drug.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the ongoing Study 004, an open-label clinical trial involving 61 patients with VHL-associated RCC with at least one measurable solid tumor localized to the kidney. Enrolled patients had other VHL-associated tumors, including CNS hemangioblastomas and pNETs.

Patients received belzutifan 120 mg once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The overall response rate, which was the study’s primary endpoint, was 49% in patients with VHL-associated RCC. Additional efficacy endpoints included duration of response (DoR), which was not reached. So far, 56% of responders had DoR of at least 12 months. The median time to response was 8 months.

Among the patients in the study with other VHL-associated non-RCC tumors, 24 patients with CNS hemangioblastomas had an ORR of 63%, and 12 patients with pNETs had an ORR of 83%. Median DoR was not reached,with 73% and 50% of patients having response durations of at least 12 months for CNS hemangioblastomas and pNET, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20% of patients), according to the FDA, were decreased hemoglobin, anemia, fatigue, increased creatinine, headache, dizziness, increased glucose, and nausea.

Notably, anemia and hypoxia from belzutifan use can be severe. In Study 004, anemia occurred in 90% of patients and 7% had grade 3 anemia. Patients should be transfused as clinically indicated. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia are not recommended in patients treated with belzutifan. In Study 004, hypoxia occurred in 1.6% of patients.

Belzutifan can render some hormonal contraceptives ineffective, and belzutifan exposure during pregnancy can cause embryo-fetal harm; see full prescribing information for Welireg.

This review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence, and used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which streamlined data submission prior to the filing of the entire clinical application. The application was granted priority review by the FDA.

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