User login
FDA Approves First CAR T-Cell Therapy for rrCLL, rrSLL
Specifically, the CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product (Breyanzi) from Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squib company, is approved for adults with CLL or SLL who have received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor and a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor. It is the first CAR T-cell therapy approved in this setting.
“CLL and SLL are currently considered incurable diseases with few treatment options in the relapsed setting that can confer complete responses,” lead trial investigator Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope in Duarte, California, said in the press release.
The FDA’s approval of liso-cel in this setting “is a remarkable breakthrough, shifting the treatment paradigm from continuous therapy with sequential regimens to overcome drug resistance, to a one-time personalized T-cell based approach that has the potential to offer patients complete and lasting remission,” Dr. Siddiqi added.
Liso-cel was first approved in 2021 for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, as reported at the time by this news organization.
Approval for the new CLL and SLL indication followed Priority Review and was based on findings from the pivotal TRANSCEND CLL 004 study, in which 20% of patients with CLL or SLL achieved a complete response after a one-time liso-cel infusion, according to a Bristol-Myers Squibb press release.
The 89 participants in the open-label, phase 1/2 study received a single dose of liso-cel containing 90-110 x 106CAR-positive viable T cells. The overall response rate was 45%, and median duration of response was 35.3 months. Among the 20% of patients achieving a complete response, the median duration of that response was not reached at the time of data cutoff.
Liso-cel had a tolerable safety profile. Cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events were mostly low grade. Cytokine release syndrome of any grade occurred in 83% of patients; 9% were grade 3, and none were grade 4 or 5.
Neurologic events of any grade occurred in 46% of patients, with grade 3 events occurring in 20% of patients; one grade 4 event and no grade 5 events occurred.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product (Breyanzi) from Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squib company, is approved for adults with CLL or SLL who have received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor and a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor. It is the first CAR T-cell therapy approved in this setting.
“CLL and SLL are currently considered incurable diseases with few treatment options in the relapsed setting that can confer complete responses,” lead trial investigator Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope in Duarte, California, said in the press release.
The FDA’s approval of liso-cel in this setting “is a remarkable breakthrough, shifting the treatment paradigm from continuous therapy with sequential regimens to overcome drug resistance, to a one-time personalized T-cell based approach that has the potential to offer patients complete and lasting remission,” Dr. Siddiqi added.
Liso-cel was first approved in 2021 for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, as reported at the time by this news organization.
Approval for the new CLL and SLL indication followed Priority Review and was based on findings from the pivotal TRANSCEND CLL 004 study, in which 20% of patients with CLL or SLL achieved a complete response after a one-time liso-cel infusion, according to a Bristol-Myers Squibb press release.
The 89 participants in the open-label, phase 1/2 study received a single dose of liso-cel containing 90-110 x 106CAR-positive viable T cells. The overall response rate was 45%, and median duration of response was 35.3 months. Among the 20% of patients achieving a complete response, the median duration of that response was not reached at the time of data cutoff.
Liso-cel had a tolerable safety profile. Cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events were mostly low grade. Cytokine release syndrome of any grade occurred in 83% of patients; 9% were grade 3, and none were grade 4 or 5.
Neurologic events of any grade occurred in 46% of patients, with grade 3 events occurring in 20% of patients; one grade 4 event and no grade 5 events occurred.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product (Breyanzi) from Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squib company, is approved for adults with CLL or SLL who have received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor and a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor. It is the first CAR T-cell therapy approved in this setting.
“CLL and SLL are currently considered incurable diseases with few treatment options in the relapsed setting that can confer complete responses,” lead trial investigator Tanya Siddiqi, MD, of City of Hope in Duarte, California, said in the press release.
The FDA’s approval of liso-cel in this setting “is a remarkable breakthrough, shifting the treatment paradigm from continuous therapy with sequential regimens to overcome drug resistance, to a one-time personalized T-cell based approach that has the potential to offer patients complete and lasting remission,” Dr. Siddiqi added.
Liso-cel was first approved in 2021 for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, as reported at the time by this news organization.
Approval for the new CLL and SLL indication followed Priority Review and was based on findings from the pivotal TRANSCEND CLL 004 study, in which 20% of patients with CLL or SLL achieved a complete response after a one-time liso-cel infusion, according to a Bristol-Myers Squibb press release.
The 89 participants in the open-label, phase 1/2 study received a single dose of liso-cel containing 90-110 x 106CAR-positive viable T cells. The overall response rate was 45%, and median duration of response was 35.3 months. Among the 20% of patients achieving a complete response, the median duration of that response was not reached at the time of data cutoff.
Liso-cel had a tolerable safety profile. Cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events were mostly low grade. Cytokine release syndrome of any grade occurred in 83% of patients; 9% were grade 3, and none were grade 4 or 5.
Neurologic events of any grade occurred in 46% of patients, with grade 3 events occurring in 20% of patients; one grade 4 event and no grade 5 events occurred.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Amivantamab First-line Indication for NSCLC
Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw.
The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).
Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.
Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw.
The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).
Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.
Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw.
The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).
Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.
Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves First Cellular Therapy for Metastatic Melanoma
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics) for the treatment of certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, marking the first approval of a cellular therapy in the solid tumor setting.
Specifically, the tumor-derived autologous T-cell immunotherapy is indicated for adult patients previously treated with a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)–blocking antibody, and if BRAF V600–positive, a BRAF inhibitor with or without an MEK inhibitor.
,” Samantha R. Guild, JD, president, AIM at Melanoma Foundation, stated in a press release. “This one-time cell therapy represents a promising innovation for the melanoma community, and we are excited by its potential to transform care for patients who are in dire need of additional therapeutic options.”
The approval was based on findings from the open-label single-arm global C-144-01 clinical trial, which showed an objective response rate of 31.5% in 73 patients treated within the recommended dosing rage of 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 viable cells. Complete responses occurred in three patients (4.1%) and partial responses occurred in 20 patients (27.4%)
Median duration of response was not reached at 18.6 months of follow-up. The median time to initial response to the therapy was 1.5 months, according to an FDA press release.
“Unresectable or metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of cancer that can be fatal,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research stated in the FDA release. “The approval of Amtagvi represents the culmination of scientific and clinical research efforts leading to a novel T cell immunotherapy for patients with limited treatment options.”
“The melanoma community is so grateful to the patients, caregivers, and clinicians who have made the clinical trials of this therapy possible and got lifileucel to approval,” Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, director of Melanoma Medical Oncology at Stanford Medicine, wrote on X. “We are very excited to bring this life-saving therapy to patients ASAP! Available immediately at @StanfordCancer!!!”
For the C-144-01 trial, lifileucel was administered after a lymphodepletion regimen of 60 mg/kg/d of cyclophosphamide for 2 days followed by 25 mg/m2/d of fludarabine for 5 days. Between 3 and 34 hours after infusion, patients received 600,000 IU/Kg of the interleukin 2 aldesleukin every 8-12 hours for up to six doses to support cell expansion in vivo.
The full prescribing information for lifileucel contains a boxed warning for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, cardiopulmonary, and renal impairment. The most common adverse reactions, which occurred in at least 20% of patients, were chills, pyrexia, fatigue, tachycardia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, edema, rash hypotension, alopecia, infection, hypoxia, and dyspnea.
“Patients receiving this product should be closely monitored before and after infusion for signs and symptoms of adverse reactions. Treatment should be withheld or discontinued in the presence of these symptoms, as indicated,” according to the FDA statement.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics) for the treatment of certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, marking the first approval of a cellular therapy in the solid tumor setting.
Specifically, the tumor-derived autologous T-cell immunotherapy is indicated for adult patients previously treated with a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)–blocking antibody, and if BRAF V600–positive, a BRAF inhibitor with or without an MEK inhibitor.
,” Samantha R. Guild, JD, president, AIM at Melanoma Foundation, stated in a press release. “This one-time cell therapy represents a promising innovation for the melanoma community, and we are excited by its potential to transform care for patients who are in dire need of additional therapeutic options.”
The approval was based on findings from the open-label single-arm global C-144-01 clinical trial, which showed an objective response rate of 31.5% in 73 patients treated within the recommended dosing rage of 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 viable cells. Complete responses occurred in three patients (4.1%) and partial responses occurred in 20 patients (27.4%)
Median duration of response was not reached at 18.6 months of follow-up. The median time to initial response to the therapy was 1.5 months, according to an FDA press release.
“Unresectable or metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of cancer that can be fatal,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research stated in the FDA release. “The approval of Amtagvi represents the culmination of scientific and clinical research efforts leading to a novel T cell immunotherapy for patients with limited treatment options.”
“The melanoma community is so grateful to the patients, caregivers, and clinicians who have made the clinical trials of this therapy possible and got lifileucel to approval,” Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, director of Melanoma Medical Oncology at Stanford Medicine, wrote on X. “We are very excited to bring this life-saving therapy to patients ASAP! Available immediately at @StanfordCancer!!!”
For the C-144-01 trial, lifileucel was administered after a lymphodepletion regimen of 60 mg/kg/d of cyclophosphamide for 2 days followed by 25 mg/m2/d of fludarabine for 5 days. Between 3 and 34 hours after infusion, patients received 600,000 IU/Kg of the interleukin 2 aldesleukin every 8-12 hours for up to six doses to support cell expansion in vivo.
The full prescribing information for lifileucel contains a boxed warning for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, cardiopulmonary, and renal impairment. The most common adverse reactions, which occurred in at least 20% of patients, were chills, pyrexia, fatigue, tachycardia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, edema, rash hypotension, alopecia, infection, hypoxia, and dyspnea.
“Patients receiving this product should be closely monitored before and after infusion for signs and symptoms of adverse reactions. Treatment should be withheld or discontinued in the presence of these symptoms, as indicated,” according to the FDA statement.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics) for the treatment of certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, marking the first approval of a cellular therapy in the solid tumor setting.
Specifically, the tumor-derived autologous T-cell immunotherapy is indicated for adult patients previously treated with a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)–blocking antibody, and if BRAF V600–positive, a BRAF inhibitor with or without an MEK inhibitor.
,” Samantha R. Guild, JD, president, AIM at Melanoma Foundation, stated in a press release. “This one-time cell therapy represents a promising innovation for the melanoma community, and we are excited by its potential to transform care for patients who are in dire need of additional therapeutic options.”
The approval was based on findings from the open-label single-arm global C-144-01 clinical trial, which showed an objective response rate of 31.5% in 73 patients treated within the recommended dosing rage of 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 viable cells. Complete responses occurred in three patients (4.1%) and partial responses occurred in 20 patients (27.4%)
Median duration of response was not reached at 18.6 months of follow-up. The median time to initial response to the therapy was 1.5 months, according to an FDA press release.
“Unresectable or metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of cancer that can be fatal,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research stated in the FDA release. “The approval of Amtagvi represents the culmination of scientific and clinical research efforts leading to a novel T cell immunotherapy for patients with limited treatment options.”
“The melanoma community is so grateful to the patients, caregivers, and clinicians who have made the clinical trials of this therapy possible and got lifileucel to approval,” Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, director of Melanoma Medical Oncology at Stanford Medicine, wrote on X. “We are very excited to bring this life-saving therapy to patients ASAP! Available immediately at @StanfordCancer!!!”
For the C-144-01 trial, lifileucel was administered after a lymphodepletion regimen of 60 mg/kg/d of cyclophosphamide for 2 days followed by 25 mg/m2/d of fludarabine for 5 days. Between 3 and 34 hours after infusion, patients received 600,000 IU/Kg of the interleukin 2 aldesleukin every 8-12 hours for up to six doses to support cell expansion in vivo.
The full prescribing information for lifileucel contains a boxed warning for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, cardiopulmonary, and renal impairment. The most common adverse reactions, which occurred in at least 20% of patients, were chills, pyrexia, fatigue, tachycardia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, edema, rash hypotension, alopecia, infection, hypoxia, and dyspnea.
“Patients receiving this product should be closely monitored before and after infusion for signs and symptoms of adverse reactions. Treatment should be withheld or discontinued in the presence of these symptoms, as indicated,” according to the FDA statement.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Does Eliminating Alcohol Intake Lower Cancer Risk?
Dry January has come to an end — at least for those who jumped on the trendy post-holiday no-booze wagon.
The benefits of drinking less alcohol are well documented. A systematic review of 63 studies, for example, found that reducing or giving up alcohol reduced people’s risk for hospitalization, injuries, and death. The lifestyle change also improved people’s physical and mental health as well as their quality of life.
When it comes to cancer risk, however, the benefits of quitting or cutting back on alcohol remain much less clear, according to a new report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO).
After reviewing dozens of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that, for most alcohol-related cancers, there is limited evidence to support a link between eliminating or reducing alcohol consumption and lowering of cancer risk.
More specifically, the IARC Working Group, which included 15 scientists from eight countries, reported “limited” evidence on this association for laryngeal, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancer as well as «inadequate» evidence for pharyngeal and liver cancer.
The report did highlight two exceptions: Reducing or quitting alcohol was associated with a lower risk for both oral and esophageal cancer. The IARC working group based this conclusion on large studies of long-term alcohol cessation in these cancer types.
Still, the authors noted, “significant scientific gaps” exist for most alcohol-related cancers.
Take the data on CRC. Two studies found that reducing alcohol consumption did appear to lower CRC risk, while two others — which focused on the duration of quitting — did not suggest a reduced risk for CRC.
“Given the inconsistencies among studies and the few studies on duration of cessation, the Working Group concluded that there was limited evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces colorectal cancer risk,” the authors wrote.
For liver cancer, the experts did note an association between quitting alcohol and lower cancer risk, but that cohort study only included individuals with alcohol-related liver disease. Outside of this study, the IARC group found no clear association between quitting drinking and liver cancer among people without alcohol-related liver disease in the other 11 studies evaluated.
For pharyngeal cancer, the evidence was limited overall, but one analysis looking at long-term cessation and oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer found a 26% lower risk (95% CI, 0.50-1.09). That association went away, however, after adjusting for detailed smoking history (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61), and the working group concluded, overall, that «there was inadequate evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces pharyngeal cancer risk.”
The IARC working group did find sufficient evidence linking drinking cessation and reduced risk for oral and esophageal cancers.
For instance, an international pooled analysis, which included 12 studies assessing a link between quitting smoking and alcohol and oral cancer risk, found that longer duration since quitting was associated with lower risk. Not drinking for up to 4 years was associated with a 19% lower risk for oral cancer, quitting for 5-9 years was associated with a 23% lower risk, while quitting for 20 years was associated with 55% lower risk.
“Given the consistent evidence of a reduced risk of oral cancer associated with long-term alcohol cessation,” the IARC working group concluded that there was “sufficient evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces oral cancer risk.”
The working group also found “sufficient evidence from mechanistic studies that alcohol cessation reduces alcohol-related carcinogenesis.” In other words, quitting drinking appeared to reverse certain cancer-promoting biological mechanisms.
Outside the recent IARC report, some individual studies have suggested that quitting or cutting back on alcohol can reduce the risk for certain cancers.
For example, a large population-based study of about 4.5 million individuals in Korea found a lower risk for alcohol-related cancers among mild drinkers who quit (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96) and heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels to mild (aHR, 0.92) or moderate (aHR, 0.91). These findings, however, may not be generalizable beyond East Asian populations.
Addressing the existing evidence gaps could help “support alcohol-control measures to reduce consumption,” the IARC working group concluded.
The Case for Limiting Alcohol
While the evidence linking reducing or stopping drinking and lower cancer risk remains limited, the opposite association is well-established — greater alcohol consumption does increase cancer risk.
A previous IARC analysis estimated that alcohol consumption accounts for about 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide, most commonly esophagus, liver, and breast cancer. The IARC has even classified alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, highlighting the strong evidence demonstrating that alcohol can cause cancer in humans.
Experts also recommend following existing guidelines for alcohol intake. Guidelines from the American Cancer Society and from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services specify limiting alcohol intake to one drink or less for women and two drinks or less for men on any given day.
In a January 9, 2023, blog post, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism director George F. Koob, PhD, touted the known benefits of limiting drinking.
“Research shows that even small amounts of alcohol can carry health risks, including for certain cancers and cardiovascular issues,” Dr. Koob said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Dry January has come to an end — at least for those who jumped on the trendy post-holiday no-booze wagon.
The benefits of drinking less alcohol are well documented. A systematic review of 63 studies, for example, found that reducing or giving up alcohol reduced people’s risk for hospitalization, injuries, and death. The lifestyle change also improved people’s physical and mental health as well as their quality of life.
When it comes to cancer risk, however, the benefits of quitting or cutting back on alcohol remain much less clear, according to a new report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO).
After reviewing dozens of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that, for most alcohol-related cancers, there is limited evidence to support a link between eliminating or reducing alcohol consumption and lowering of cancer risk.
More specifically, the IARC Working Group, which included 15 scientists from eight countries, reported “limited” evidence on this association for laryngeal, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancer as well as «inadequate» evidence for pharyngeal and liver cancer.
The report did highlight two exceptions: Reducing or quitting alcohol was associated with a lower risk for both oral and esophageal cancer. The IARC working group based this conclusion on large studies of long-term alcohol cessation in these cancer types.
Still, the authors noted, “significant scientific gaps” exist for most alcohol-related cancers.
Take the data on CRC. Two studies found that reducing alcohol consumption did appear to lower CRC risk, while two others — which focused on the duration of quitting — did not suggest a reduced risk for CRC.
“Given the inconsistencies among studies and the few studies on duration of cessation, the Working Group concluded that there was limited evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces colorectal cancer risk,” the authors wrote.
For liver cancer, the experts did note an association between quitting alcohol and lower cancer risk, but that cohort study only included individuals with alcohol-related liver disease. Outside of this study, the IARC group found no clear association between quitting drinking and liver cancer among people without alcohol-related liver disease in the other 11 studies evaluated.
For pharyngeal cancer, the evidence was limited overall, but one analysis looking at long-term cessation and oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer found a 26% lower risk (95% CI, 0.50-1.09). That association went away, however, after adjusting for detailed smoking history (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61), and the working group concluded, overall, that «there was inadequate evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces pharyngeal cancer risk.”
The IARC working group did find sufficient evidence linking drinking cessation and reduced risk for oral and esophageal cancers.
For instance, an international pooled analysis, which included 12 studies assessing a link between quitting smoking and alcohol and oral cancer risk, found that longer duration since quitting was associated with lower risk. Not drinking for up to 4 years was associated with a 19% lower risk for oral cancer, quitting for 5-9 years was associated with a 23% lower risk, while quitting for 20 years was associated with 55% lower risk.
“Given the consistent evidence of a reduced risk of oral cancer associated with long-term alcohol cessation,” the IARC working group concluded that there was “sufficient evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces oral cancer risk.”
The working group also found “sufficient evidence from mechanistic studies that alcohol cessation reduces alcohol-related carcinogenesis.” In other words, quitting drinking appeared to reverse certain cancer-promoting biological mechanisms.
Outside the recent IARC report, some individual studies have suggested that quitting or cutting back on alcohol can reduce the risk for certain cancers.
For example, a large population-based study of about 4.5 million individuals in Korea found a lower risk for alcohol-related cancers among mild drinkers who quit (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96) and heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels to mild (aHR, 0.92) or moderate (aHR, 0.91). These findings, however, may not be generalizable beyond East Asian populations.
Addressing the existing evidence gaps could help “support alcohol-control measures to reduce consumption,” the IARC working group concluded.
The Case for Limiting Alcohol
While the evidence linking reducing or stopping drinking and lower cancer risk remains limited, the opposite association is well-established — greater alcohol consumption does increase cancer risk.
A previous IARC analysis estimated that alcohol consumption accounts for about 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide, most commonly esophagus, liver, and breast cancer. The IARC has even classified alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, highlighting the strong evidence demonstrating that alcohol can cause cancer in humans.
Experts also recommend following existing guidelines for alcohol intake. Guidelines from the American Cancer Society and from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services specify limiting alcohol intake to one drink or less for women and two drinks or less for men on any given day.
In a January 9, 2023, blog post, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism director George F. Koob, PhD, touted the known benefits of limiting drinking.
“Research shows that even small amounts of alcohol can carry health risks, including for certain cancers and cardiovascular issues,” Dr. Koob said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Dry January has come to an end — at least for those who jumped on the trendy post-holiday no-booze wagon.
The benefits of drinking less alcohol are well documented. A systematic review of 63 studies, for example, found that reducing or giving up alcohol reduced people’s risk for hospitalization, injuries, and death. The lifestyle change also improved people’s physical and mental health as well as their quality of life.
When it comes to cancer risk, however, the benefits of quitting or cutting back on alcohol remain much less clear, according to a new report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO).
After reviewing dozens of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that, for most alcohol-related cancers, there is limited evidence to support a link between eliminating or reducing alcohol consumption and lowering of cancer risk.
More specifically, the IARC Working Group, which included 15 scientists from eight countries, reported “limited” evidence on this association for laryngeal, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancer as well as «inadequate» evidence for pharyngeal and liver cancer.
The report did highlight two exceptions: Reducing or quitting alcohol was associated with a lower risk for both oral and esophageal cancer. The IARC working group based this conclusion on large studies of long-term alcohol cessation in these cancer types.
Still, the authors noted, “significant scientific gaps” exist for most alcohol-related cancers.
Take the data on CRC. Two studies found that reducing alcohol consumption did appear to lower CRC risk, while two others — which focused on the duration of quitting — did not suggest a reduced risk for CRC.
“Given the inconsistencies among studies and the few studies on duration of cessation, the Working Group concluded that there was limited evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces colorectal cancer risk,” the authors wrote.
For liver cancer, the experts did note an association between quitting alcohol and lower cancer risk, but that cohort study only included individuals with alcohol-related liver disease. Outside of this study, the IARC group found no clear association between quitting drinking and liver cancer among people without alcohol-related liver disease in the other 11 studies evaluated.
For pharyngeal cancer, the evidence was limited overall, but one analysis looking at long-term cessation and oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer found a 26% lower risk (95% CI, 0.50-1.09). That association went away, however, after adjusting for detailed smoking history (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61), and the working group concluded, overall, that «there was inadequate evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces pharyngeal cancer risk.”
The IARC working group did find sufficient evidence linking drinking cessation and reduced risk for oral and esophageal cancers.
For instance, an international pooled analysis, which included 12 studies assessing a link between quitting smoking and alcohol and oral cancer risk, found that longer duration since quitting was associated with lower risk. Not drinking for up to 4 years was associated with a 19% lower risk for oral cancer, quitting for 5-9 years was associated with a 23% lower risk, while quitting for 20 years was associated with 55% lower risk.
“Given the consistent evidence of a reduced risk of oral cancer associated with long-term alcohol cessation,” the IARC working group concluded that there was “sufficient evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces oral cancer risk.”
The working group also found “sufficient evidence from mechanistic studies that alcohol cessation reduces alcohol-related carcinogenesis.” In other words, quitting drinking appeared to reverse certain cancer-promoting biological mechanisms.
Outside the recent IARC report, some individual studies have suggested that quitting or cutting back on alcohol can reduce the risk for certain cancers.
For example, a large population-based study of about 4.5 million individuals in Korea found a lower risk for alcohol-related cancers among mild drinkers who quit (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96) and heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels to mild (aHR, 0.92) or moderate (aHR, 0.91). These findings, however, may not be generalizable beyond East Asian populations.
Addressing the existing evidence gaps could help “support alcohol-control measures to reduce consumption,” the IARC working group concluded.
The Case for Limiting Alcohol
While the evidence linking reducing or stopping drinking and lower cancer risk remains limited, the opposite association is well-established — greater alcohol consumption does increase cancer risk.
A previous IARC analysis estimated that alcohol consumption accounts for about 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide, most commonly esophagus, liver, and breast cancer. The IARC has even classified alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, highlighting the strong evidence demonstrating that alcohol can cause cancer in humans.
Experts also recommend following existing guidelines for alcohol intake. Guidelines from the American Cancer Society and from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services specify limiting alcohol intake to one drink or less for women and two drinks or less for men on any given day.
In a January 9, 2023, blog post, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism director George F. Koob, PhD, touted the known benefits of limiting drinking.
“Research shows that even small amounts of alcohol can carry health risks, including for certain cancers and cardiovascular issues,” Dr. Koob said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Guidelines: Start PSA Screening Earlier in Black Men
Lowering the recommended age for baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) would reduce prostate cancer deaths by about 30% in Black men without significantly increasing the rate of overdiagnosis, according to new screening guidelines from the Prostate Cancer Foundation.
Specifically, baseline PSA testing in Black men should begin at age 40-45, sooner than current guidelines recommend, and should be followed by regular screening intervals, preferably annually, at least until age 70, a multidisciplinary panel of experts and patient advocates determined based on a comprehensive literature review.
The panel’s findings were presented in a poster at the ASCO Genitourinary Symposium.
“Black men in the United States are considered a high-risk population for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer,” lead author Isla Garraway, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. Specifically, Black men are about two times more likely to be diagnosed with and die from prostate cancer than White men. But, the authors continued, “few guidelines have outlined specific recommendations for PSA-based prostate cancer screening among Black men.”
The US Preventive Services Taskforce recommendations, which are currently being updated, set the PSA screening start age at 55. The task force recommendations, which dictate insurance coverage in the United States, acknowledged “a potential mortality benefit for African American men when beginning screening before age 55 years” but did not explicitly recommend screening earlier.
Current guidelines from the American Cancer Society call for discussions about screening in average-risk men to begin at age 50-55. The recommendations do specify lowering the age to 45 for those at a high risk for prostate cancer, which includes Black men as well as those with a first-degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 65. In some cases, screening can begin at age 40 in the highest risk men — those with more than one first-degree relative who had prostate cancer at a young age.
The Prostate Cancer Foundation “wanted to address the confusion around different guideline statements and the lack of clarity around screening recommendations for Black men,” said William K. Oh, MD, of The Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who chaired the panel for the new guidelines. “We thus convened a distinguished panel of experts from diverse backgrounds and expertise to create six guidelines statements to help Black men, their families, and their healthcare providers to consider options for prostate cancer screening based on the best available evidence.”
After reviewing 287, the expert panel developed six new guideline statements, reaching at least 80% consensus among panel members, addressing screening for Black men:
Because Black men are at a high risk for prostate cancer, the benefits of screening generally outweigh the risks.
PSA testing should be considered first line for prostate cancer screening, although some providers may recommend an optional digital rectal exam in addition to the PSA test.
Black men should engage in shared decision-making with their healthcare providers and other trusted sources of information to learn about the pros and cons of screening.
For Black men who elect screening, a baseline PSA test should be done between ages 40 and 45, and annual PSA screening should be strongly considered based on the PSA value and the individual’s health status.
Black men over age 70 who have been undergoing prostate cancer screening should talk with their healthcare provider about whether to continue PSA testing and make an informed decision based on their age, life expectancy, health status, family history, and prior PSA levels.
Black men who are at even higher risk due to a strong family history and/or known carriers of high-risk genetic variants should consider initiating annual PSA screening as early as age 40.
These statements are based on “the best available evidence, which overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Black men in the US could benefit from a risk-adapted PSA screening,” the investigators concluded, noting that the latest evidence “warrants revisiting current recommendations for early [prostate cancer] detection in Black men from other national guideline groups.”
“We believe that the outcome of these more directed guidelines will be to give clarity to these men,” Dr. Oh added.
This research was funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs, Jean Perkins Foundation, and Department of Defense. Dr. Garraway reported having no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lowering the recommended age for baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) would reduce prostate cancer deaths by about 30% in Black men without significantly increasing the rate of overdiagnosis, according to new screening guidelines from the Prostate Cancer Foundation.
Specifically, baseline PSA testing in Black men should begin at age 40-45, sooner than current guidelines recommend, and should be followed by regular screening intervals, preferably annually, at least until age 70, a multidisciplinary panel of experts and patient advocates determined based on a comprehensive literature review.
The panel’s findings were presented in a poster at the ASCO Genitourinary Symposium.
“Black men in the United States are considered a high-risk population for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer,” lead author Isla Garraway, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. Specifically, Black men are about two times more likely to be diagnosed with and die from prostate cancer than White men. But, the authors continued, “few guidelines have outlined specific recommendations for PSA-based prostate cancer screening among Black men.”
The US Preventive Services Taskforce recommendations, which are currently being updated, set the PSA screening start age at 55. The task force recommendations, which dictate insurance coverage in the United States, acknowledged “a potential mortality benefit for African American men when beginning screening before age 55 years” but did not explicitly recommend screening earlier.
Current guidelines from the American Cancer Society call for discussions about screening in average-risk men to begin at age 50-55. The recommendations do specify lowering the age to 45 for those at a high risk for prostate cancer, which includes Black men as well as those with a first-degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 65. In some cases, screening can begin at age 40 in the highest risk men — those with more than one first-degree relative who had prostate cancer at a young age.
The Prostate Cancer Foundation “wanted to address the confusion around different guideline statements and the lack of clarity around screening recommendations for Black men,” said William K. Oh, MD, of The Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who chaired the panel for the new guidelines. “We thus convened a distinguished panel of experts from diverse backgrounds and expertise to create six guidelines statements to help Black men, their families, and their healthcare providers to consider options for prostate cancer screening based on the best available evidence.”
After reviewing 287, the expert panel developed six new guideline statements, reaching at least 80% consensus among panel members, addressing screening for Black men:
Because Black men are at a high risk for prostate cancer, the benefits of screening generally outweigh the risks.
PSA testing should be considered first line for prostate cancer screening, although some providers may recommend an optional digital rectal exam in addition to the PSA test.
Black men should engage in shared decision-making with their healthcare providers and other trusted sources of information to learn about the pros and cons of screening.
For Black men who elect screening, a baseline PSA test should be done between ages 40 and 45, and annual PSA screening should be strongly considered based on the PSA value and the individual’s health status.
Black men over age 70 who have been undergoing prostate cancer screening should talk with their healthcare provider about whether to continue PSA testing and make an informed decision based on their age, life expectancy, health status, family history, and prior PSA levels.
Black men who are at even higher risk due to a strong family history and/or known carriers of high-risk genetic variants should consider initiating annual PSA screening as early as age 40.
These statements are based on “the best available evidence, which overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Black men in the US could benefit from a risk-adapted PSA screening,” the investigators concluded, noting that the latest evidence “warrants revisiting current recommendations for early [prostate cancer] detection in Black men from other national guideline groups.”
“We believe that the outcome of these more directed guidelines will be to give clarity to these men,” Dr. Oh added.
This research was funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs, Jean Perkins Foundation, and Department of Defense. Dr. Garraway reported having no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lowering the recommended age for baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) would reduce prostate cancer deaths by about 30% in Black men without significantly increasing the rate of overdiagnosis, according to new screening guidelines from the Prostate Cancer Foundation.
Specifically, baseline PSA testing in Black men should begin at age 40-45, sooner than current guidelines recommend, and should be followed by regular screening intervals, preferably annually, at least until age 70, a multidisciplinary panel of experts and patient advocates determined based on a comprehensive literature review.
The panel’s findings were presented in a poster at the ASCO Genitourinary Symposium.
“Black men in the United States are considered a high-risk population for being diagnosed with and dying from prostate cancer,” lead author Isla Garraway, MD, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. Specifically, Black men are about two times more likely to be diagnosed with and die from prostate cancer than White men. But, the authors continued, “few guidelines have outlined specific recommendations for PSA-based prostate cancer screening among Black men.”
The US Preventive Services Taskforce recommendations, which are currently being updated, set the PSA screening start age at 55. The task force recommendations, which dictate insurance coverage in the United States, acknowledged “a potential mortality benefit for African American men when beginning screening before age 55 years” but did not explicitly recommend screening earlier.
Current guidelines from the American Cancer Society call for discussions about screening in average-risk men to begin at age 50-55. The recommendations do specify lowering the age to 45 for those at a high risk for prostate cancer, which includes Black men as well as those with a first-degree relative diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 65. In some cases, screening can begin at age 40 in the highest risk men — those with more than one first-degree relative who had prostate cancer at a young age.
The Prostate Cancer Foundation “wanted to address the confusion around different guideline statements and the lack of clarity around screening recommendations for Black men,” said William K. Oh, MD, of The Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who chaired the panel for the new guidelines. “We thus convened a distinguished panel of experts from diverse backgrounds and expertise to create six guidelines statements to help Black men, their families, and their healthcare providers to consider options for prostate cancer screening based on the best available evidence.”
After reviewing 287, the expert panel developed six new guideline statements, reaching at least 80% consensus among panel members, addressing screening for Black men:
Because Black men are at a high risk for prostate cancer, the benefits of screening generally outweigh the risks.
PSA testing should be considered first line for prostate cancer screening, although some providers may recommend an optional digital rectal exam in addition to the PSA test.
Black men should engage in shared decision-making with their healthcare providers and other trusted sources of information to learn about the pros and cons of screening.
For Black men who elect screening, a baseline PSA test should be done between ages 40 and 45, and annual PSA screening should be strongly considered based on the PSA value and the individual’s health status.
Black men over age 70 who have been undergoing prostate cancer screening should talk with their healthcare provider about whether to continue PSA testing and make an informed decision based on their age, life expectancy, health status, family history, and prior PSA levels.
Black men who are at even higher risk due to a strong family history and/or known carriers of high-risk genetic variants should consider initiating annual PSA screening as early as age 40.
These statements are based on “the best available evidence, which overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Black men in the US could benefit from a risk-adapted PSA screening,” the investigators concluded, noting that the latest evidence “warrants revisiting current recommendations for early [prostate cancer] detection in Black men from other national guideline groups.”
“We believe that the outcome of these more directed guidelines will be to give clarity to these men,” Dr. Oh added.
This research was funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs, Jean Perkins Foundation, and Department of Defense. Dr. Garraway reported having no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO GU 2024
Dana-Farber Moves to Retract, Correct Dozens of Cancer Papers Amid Allegations
News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.
Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.
In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.”
“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.
Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.”
Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors.
The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.
Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.
In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.”
“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.
Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.”
Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors.
The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.
Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.
In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.”
“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.
Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.”
Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors.
The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Young Myeloma Specialist Forges Ahead, Gives Back
Ahead of the conference held in San Diego in December, Dr. Mohyuddin, a blood cancer specialist with a focus on multiple myeloma and medical education, put out a heartfelt appeal on X (formerly Twitter): “If you’re a trainee and interested in meeting me at #ASH23, please reach out … (especially if [international medical graduate]) I’d love to meet and offer support in whatever capacity I can! I can’t have a research project for each one of you, but happy to help/mentor in any other way possible,” he posted on X back in late November.
An international medical graduate himself, Dr. Mohyuddin recalls how overwhelmed he felt when he first attended an annual ASH conference as a trainee, so he aims to reassure others that they “don’t have to know everything.”
“It’s about networking and broadening horizons,” he said in an interview that took place between ASH sessions, his own research presentations, and meetings with the many trainees who took him up on the offer he made via X. “I’ve spent most of this ASH meeting trainees — it’s the most rewarding thing for me at these meetings.
“Reassurance is a lot of what we do in oncology,” he continued, drawing a connection between his affinity for helping trainees and providing compassionate care to patients. “For an oncologist, the single most important thing is having excellent communication skills and being able to express support and empathy. The ability to connect deeply with your patients during their time of need is profoundly important.
“You can compensate for lack of knowledge, because we have so many other sources of support for knowledge, but you simply cannot compensate for poor communication skills, and your patient suffers as a result,” he said.
Relationship Building
In addition to the guidance he received from mentors, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that it was the chance to build supportive, empathetic relationships that drew him to specialize in blood cancer and, in particular, to caring for patients with multiple myeloma and conducting research focused on improving the patient experience.
Dr. Mohyuddin attended medical school at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan, then completed his internal medicine residency and fellowship at the University of Kansas in Kansas City. As a chief resident there, he focused on novel approaches to education delivery and improving access to research for trainees. As a fellow, he developed clinical and research interests in multiple myeloma, which he describes as an “incredibly rewarding field” marked by “truly spectacular advances over the last two decades.”
“There are some cancers you can cure, which means you don’t get to see patients often, and there are some you can’t cure, where patients die early, and there’s not a lot of time to build a relationship,” he said. “But there are some where patients can do well even though they aren’t currently cured, and you get to form really amazing and meaningful relationships over a long period of time.
“Multiple myeloma occupies that space, and that’s why I’m drawn to it,” Dr. Mohyuddin added, noting that he doesn’t shy away from forging emotional connections with patients. “I recognize that makes me vulnerable, but I think that is essentially what your patients deserve from you — to be invested at an emotional level with them through their suffering.”
Improving value and the patient experience
“One thing, philosophically, that I research is value in multiple myeloma care: identifying areas where we are overtreating patients and where we can do less and get away with it,” he said.
Despite the major advances in multiple myeloma in recent years, which “represent a lot of what is going right with oncology,” this blood cancer still “also represents a lot of what is wrong with oncology,” he noted. As an example, he cited “the approval of low-value drugs, the sequencing of drugs, adding more and more drugs without responsibly addressing quality-of-life questions, and identifying more responsible ways to provide high-value efficacious care without bankrupting the economy.
“So my research and policy work apply to that,” he explained. “What can we do better? What sort of trials should we be doing? What populations do we enroll? Are we asking the right questions or looking at trivialities? Are we serving patients foremost?”
Sometimes, this means comparing multiple myeloma staging systems in a real-world cohort, or assessing whether a widely available, cheap, and safe drug like budesonide can help patients avoid diarrhea during chemotherapy, whether control arms in myeloma randomized trials are fair, whether drugs ever get approved in low- or middle-income countries after their approval in the United States, and whether smoldering myeloma, a multiple myeloma precursor, really requires treatment, as current guidelines suggest, or if patients would do just as well — or perhaps better — with a close surveillance protocol.
“Pharma won’t do those studies and many key opinion leaders feel the question [about whether smoldering myeloma needs to be treated] has already been answered, so we are launching a prospective study that will define the natural history of smoldering myeloma and allow for patients to stay off therapy while undergoing rigorous surveillance with imaging,” he said.
Another study Dr. Mohyuddin hopes to launch soon will look at a “start low, go slow” treatment approach for the frailest patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.
His upbringing in Pakistan, where there are “mind-boggling” differences in health care access, affordability, and outcomes when compared with the United States, provided a foundation for both his “enthusiasm for cost-effective care” and his desire to give back, he said.
Another aspect of life in Pakistan — an across-the-board sense of closeness and solidarity in families and communities that is sometimes lacking in the United States — contributed to his desire to build relationships.
“That is something I dearly miss,” he said. “I am very privileged and so thankful to be here in the US, but that is one thing I do deeply miss.”
Connecting and Making a Difference
Dr. Mohyuddin seeks connection through his relationships with patients, trainees, and his many followers on social media platforms like X, where he frequently shares his thoughts on research quality and findings, heme/onc trends, and treatment-related insight.
“How to treat myeloma after #ASH23,” he posted on X as the conference came to a close. His takeaways: Don’t treat smoldering myeloma, do quadruple therapy for transplant-eligible patients (but no cd38 maintenance therapy afterward), don’t do quads for carfilzomib in newly diagnosed frail or older patients, and don’t do a salvage autologous transplant, no matter how good the first transplant was.
Dr. Mohyuddin also works to make a difference through his research and involvement in helping to launch initiatives like Common Sense Oncology, an ambitious global effort to reform cancer clinical trials and care, and through a current project with colleagues in India and Pakistan to create a consortium for pooling data on hematologic malignancies from South Asian countries. The hope is that such a collaborative effort will lead to good prospective research relevant to the needs of participating countries, he explained.
“Those are things where I want to make a difference. Taking care of patients is number one, but more than research, the number two thing for me is teaching and hopefully inspiring trainees and others to think differently, to look at data differently,” he said, noting that despite the major advances in myeloma, the reality is that “a lot of what we offer in oncology is very marginal.”
The effect sizes of interventions are often very small, and outcomes can still be really bad, he explained, adding that “[i]t really hits you when you see a lot of death and suffering. It’s a huge wake-up call … we have so many advances, but the reality is very, very sobering.
“Critically understanding and interpreting data is something where education really fails us. I’m incredibly passionate about it. I’ve found great resources to help me interpret data better, and I want to make them more accessible and inspire others to understand better,” he said. “We need to know how to defend ourselves from the hype.”
His efforts have not gone unnoticed. Dr. Mohyuddin was the recipient of the 2023 Hematology and Medical Oncology Fellowship Faculty Teaching Award at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, where he is currently a faculty member.
“The recognition means more than any publication or grant award,” he said. “It’s great to know that medical education is appreciated, because so often we are in a rat race of getting more papers and grants out, but teaching and inspiring people is what is really, really important to me.”
Ahead of the conference held in San Diego in December, Dr. Mohyuddin, a blood cancer specialist with a focus on multiple myeloma and medical education, put out a heartfelt appeal on X (formerly Twitter): “If you’re a trainee and interested in meeting me at #ASH23, please reach out … (especially if [international medical graduate]) I’d love to meet and offer support in whatever capacity I can! I can’t have a research project for each one of you, but happy to help/mentor in any other way possible,” he posted on X back in late November.
An international medical graduate himself, Dr. Mohyuddin recalls how overwhelmed he felt when he first attended an annual ASH conference as a trainee, so he aims to reassure others that they “don’t have to know everything.”
“It’s about networking and broadening horizons,” he said in an interview that took place between ASH sessions, his own research presentations, and meetings with the many trainees who took him up on the offer he made via X. “I’ve spent most of this ASH meeting trainees — it’s the most rewarding thing for me at these meetings.
“Reassurance is a lot of what we do in oncology,” he continued, drawing a connection between his affinity for helping trainees and providing compassionate care to patients. “For an oncologist, the single most important thing is having excellent communication skills and being able to express support and empathy. The ability to connect deeply with your patients during their time of need is profoundly important.
“You can compensate for lack of knowledge, because we have so many other sources of support for knowledge, but you simply cannot compensate for poor communication skills, and your patient suffers as a result,” he said.
Relationship Building
In addition to the guidance he received from mentors, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that it was the chance to build supportive, empathetic relationships that drew him to specialize in blood cancer and, in particular, to caring for patients with multiple myeloma and conducting research focused on improving the patient experience.
Dr. Mohyuddin attended medical school at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan, then completed his internal medicine residency and fellowship at the University of Kansas in Kansas City. As a chief resident there, he focused on novel approaches to education delivery and improving access to research for trainees. As a fellow, he developed clinical and research interests in multiple myeloma, which he describes as an “incredibly rewarding field” marked by “truly spectacular advances over the last two decades.”
“There are some cancers you can cure, which means you don’t get to see patients often, and there are some you can’t cure, where patients die early, and there’s not a lot of time to build a relationship,” he said. “But there are some where patients can do well even though they aren’t currently cured, and you get to form really amazing and meaningful relationships over a long period of time.
“Multiple myeloma occupies that space, and that’s why I’m drawn to it,” Dr. Mohyuddin added, noting that he doesn’t shy away from forging emotional connections with patients. “I recognize that makes me vulnerable, but I think that is essentially what your patients deserve from you — to be invested at an emotional level with them through their suffering.”
Improving value and the patient experience
“One thing, philosophically, that I research is value in multiple myeloma care: identifying areas where we are overtreating patients and where we can do less and get away with it,” he said.
Despite the major advances in multiple myeloma in recent years, which “represent a lot of what is going right with oncology,” this blood cancer still “also represents a lot of what is wrong with oncology,” he noted. As an example, he cited “the approval of low-value drugs, the sequencing of drugs, adding more and more drugs without responsibly addressing quality-of-life questions, and identifying more responsible ways to provide high-value efficacious care without bankrupting the economy.
“So my research and policy work apply to that,” he explained. “What can we do better? What sort of trials should we be doing? What populations do we enroll? Are we asking the right questions or looking at trivialities? Are we serving patients foremost?”
Sometimes, this means comparing multiple myeloma staging systems in a real-world cohort, or assessing whether a widely available, cheap, and safe drug like budesonide can help patients avoid diarrhea during chemotherapy, whether control arms in myeloma randomized trials are fair, whether drugs ever get approved in low- or middle-income countries after their approval in the United States, and whether smoldering myeloma, a multiple myeloma precursor, really requires treatment, as current guidelines suggest, or if patients would do just as well — or perhaps better — with a close surveillance protocol.
“Pharma won’t do those studies and many key opinion leaders feel the question [about whether smoldering myeloma needs to be treated] has already been answered, so we are launching a prospective study that will define the natural history of smoldering myeloma and allow for patients to stay off therapy while undergoing rigorous surveillance with imaging,” he said.
Another study Dr. Mohyuddin hopes to launch soon will look at a “start low, go slow” treatment approach for the frailest patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.
His upbringing in Pakistan, where there are “mind-boggling” differences in health care access, affordability, and outcomes when compared with the United States, provided a foundation for both his “enthusiasm for cost-effective care” and his desire to give back, he said.
Another aspect of life in Pakistan — an across-the-board sense of closeness and solidarity in families and communities that is sometimes lacking in the United States — contributed to his desire to build relationships.
“That is something I dearly miss,” he said. “I am very privileged and so thankful to be here in the US, but that is one thing I do deeply miss.”
Connecting and Making a Difference
Dr. Mohyuddin seeks connection through his relationships with patients, trainees, and his many followers on social media platforms like X, where he frequently shares his thoughts on research quality and findings, heme/onc trends, and treatment-related insight.
“How to treat myeloma after #ASH23,” he posted on X as the conference came to a close. His takeaways: Don’t treat smoldering myeloma, do quadruple therapy for transplant-eligible patients (but no cd38 maintenance therapy afterward), don’t do quads for carfilzomib in newly diagnosed frail or older patients, and don’t do a salvage autologous transplant, no matter how good the first transplant was.
Dr. Mohyuddin also works to make a difference through his research and involvement in helping to launch initiatives like Common Sense Oncology, an ambitious global effort to reform cancer clinical trials and care, and through a current project with colleagues in India and Pakistan to create a consortium for pooling data on hematologic malignancies from South Asian countries. The hope is that such a collaborative effort will lead to good prospective research relevant to the needs of participating countries, he explained.
“Those are things where I want to make a difference. Taking care of patients is number one, but more than research, the number two thing for me is teaching and hopefully inspiring trainees and others to think differently, to look at data differently,” he said, noting that despite the major advances in myeloma, the reality is that “a lot of what we offer in oncology is very marginal.”
The effect sizes of interventions are often very small, and outcomes can still be really bad, he explained, adding that “[i]t really hits you when you see a lot of death and suffering. It’s a huge wake-up call … we have so many advances, but the reality is very, very sobering.
“Critically understanding and interpreting data is something where education really fails us. I’m incredibly passionate about it. I’ve found great resources to help me interpret data better, and I want to make them more accessible and inspire others to understand better,” he said. “We need to know how to defend ourselves from the hype.”
His efforts have not gone unnoticed. Dr. Mohyuddin was the recipient of the 2023 Hematology and Medical Oncology Fellowship Faculty Teaching Award at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, where he is currently a faculty member.
“The recognition means more than any publication or grant award,” he said. “It’s great to know that medical education is appreciated, because so often we are in a rat race of getting more papers and grants out, but teaching and inspiring people is what is really, really important to me.”
Ahead of the conference held in San Diego in December, Dr. Mohyuddin, a blood cancer specialist with a focus on multiple myeloma and medical education, put out a heartfelt appeal on X (formerly Twitter): “If you’re a trainee and interested in meeting me at #ASH23, please reach out … (especially if [international medical graduate]) I’d love to meet and offer support in whatever capacity I can! I can’t have a research project for each one of you, but happy to help/mentor in any other way possible,” he posted on X back in late November.
An international medical graduate himself, Dr. Mohyuddin recalls how overwhelmed he felt when he first attended an annual ASH conference as a trainee, so he aims to reassure others that they “don’t have to know everything.”
“It’s about networking and broadening horizons,” he said in an interview that took place between ASH sessions, his own research presentations, and meetings with the many trainees who took him up on the offer he made via X. “I’ve spent most of this ASH meeting trainees — it’s the most rewarding thing for me at these meetings.
“Reassurance is a lot of what we do in oncology,” he continued, drawing a connection between his affinity for helping trainees and providing compassionate care to patients. “For an oncologist, the single most important thing is having excellent communication skills and being able to express support and empathy. The ability to connect deeply with your patients during their time of need is profoundly important.
“You can compensate for lack of knowledge, because we have so many other sources of support for knowledge, but you simply cannot compensate for poor communication skills, and your patient suffers as a result,” he said.
Relationship Building
In addition to the guidance he received from mentors, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that it was the chance to build supportive, empathetic relationships that drew him to specialize in blood cancer and, in particular, to caring for patients with multiple myeloma and conducting research focused on improving the patient experience.
Dr. Mohyuddin attended medical school at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan, then completed his internal medicine residency and fellowship at the University of Kansas in Kansas City. As a chief resident there, he focused on novel approaches to education delivery and improving access to research for trainees. As a fellow, he developed clinical and research interests in multiple myeloma, which he describes as an “incredibly rewarding field” marked by “truly spectacular advances over the last two decades.”
“There are some cancers you can cure, which means you don’t get to see patients often, and there are some you can’t cure, where patients die early, and there’s not a lot of time to build a relationship,” he said. “But there are some where patients can do well even though they aren’t currently cured, and you get to form really amazing and meaningful relationships over a long period of time.
“Multiple myeloma occupies that space, and that’s why I’m drawn to it,” Dr. Mohyuddin added, noting that he doesn’t shy away from forging emotional connections with patients. “I recognize that makes me vulnerable, but I think that is essentially what your patients deserve from you — to be invested at an emotional level with them through their suffering.”
Improving value and the patient experience
“One thing, philosophically, that I research is value in multiple myeloma care: identifying areas where we are overtreating patients and where we can do less and get away with it,” he said.
Despite the major advances in multiple myeloma in recent years, which “represent a lot of what is going right with oncology,” this blood cancer still “also represents a lot of what is wrong with oncology,” he noted. As an example, he cited “the approval of low-value drugs, the sequencing of drugs, adding more and more drugs without responsibly addressing quality-of-life questions, and identifying more responsible ways to provide high-value efficacious care without bankrupting the economy.
“So my research and policy work apply to that,” he explained. “What can we do better? What sort of trials should we be doing? What populations do we enroll? Are we asking the right questions or looking at trivialities? Are we serving patients foremost?”
Sometimes, this means comparing multiple myeloma staging systems in a real-world cohort, or assessing whether a widely available, cheap, and safe drug like budesonide can help patients avoid diarrhea during chemotherapy, whether control arms in myeloma randomized trials are fair, whether drugs ever get approved in low- or middle-income countries after their approval in the United States, and whether smoldering myeloma, a multiple myeloma precursor, really requires treatment, as current guidelines suggest, or if patients would do just as well — or perhaps better — with a close surveillance protocol.
“Pharma won’t do those studies and many key opinion leaders feel the question [about whether smoldering myeloma needs to be treated] has already been answered, so we are launching a prospective study that will define the natural history of smoldering myeloma and allow for patients to stay off therapy while undergoing rigorous surveillance with imaging,” he said.
Another study Dr. Mohyuddin hopes to launch soon will look at a “start low, go slow” treatment approach for the frailest patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.
His upbringing in Pakistan, where there are “mind-boggling” differences in health care access, affordability, and outcomes when compared with the United States, provided a foundation for both his “enthusiasm for cost-effective care” and his desire to give back, he said.
Another aspect of life in Pakistan — an across-the-board sense of closeness and solidarity in families and communities that is sometimes lacking in the United States — contributed to his desire to build relationships.
“That is something I dearly miss,” he said. “I am very privileged and so thankful to be here in the US, but that is one thing I do deeply miss.”
Connecting and Making a Difference
Dr. Mohyuddin seeks connection through his relationships with patients, trainees, and his many followers on social media platforms like X, where he frequently shares his thoughts on research quality and findings, heme/onc trends, and treatment-related insight.
“How to treat myeloma after #ASH23,” he posted on X as the conference came to a close. His takeaways: Don’t treat smoldering myeloma, do quadruple therapy for transplant-eligible patients (but no cd38 maintenance therapy afterward), don’t do quads for carfilzomib in newly diagnosed frail or older patients, and don’t do a salvage autologous transplant, no matter how good the first transplant was.
Dr. Mohyuddin also works to make a difference through his research and involvement in helping to launch initiatives like Common Sense Oncology, an ambitious global effort to reform cancer clinical trials and care, and through a current project with colleagues in India and Pakistan to create a consortium for pooling data on hematologic malignancies from South Asian countries. The hope is that such a collaborative effort will lead to good prospective research relevant to the needs of participating countries, he explained.
“Those are things where I want to make a difference. Taking care of patients is number one, but more than research, the number two thing for me is teaching and hopefully inspiring trainees and others to think differently, to look at data differently,” he said, noting that despite the major advances in myeloma, the reality is that “a lot of what we offer in oncology is very marginal.”
The effect sizes of interventions are often very small, and outcomes can still be really bad, he explained, adding that “[i]t really hits you when you see a lot of death and suffering. It’s a huge wake-up call … we have so many advances, but the reality is very, very sobering.
“Critically understanding and interpreting data is something where education really fails us. I’m incredibly passionate about it. I’ve found great resources to help me interpret data better, and I want to make them more accessible and inspire others to understand better,” he said. “We need to know how to defend ourselves from the hype.”
His efforts have not gone unnoticed. Dr. Mohyuddin was the recipient of the 2023 Hematology and Medical Oncology Fellowship Faculty Teaching Award at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, where he is currently a faculty member.
“The recognition means more than any publication or grant award,” he said. “It’s great to know that medical education is appreciated, because so often we are in a rat race of getting more papers and grants out, but teaching and inspiring people is what is really, really important to me.”
CRISPR-Based Gene Therapy Earns Beta Thalassemia Approval
The approval, which comes more than 2 months ahead of a target action date of March 30, marks the second for the landmark therapy. The FDA greenlit the CRISPR gene therapy to treat sickle cell disease last December.
The autologous, ex vivo, CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy from Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR.
The transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia approval is based on data from pivotal studies showing “consistent and durable response to treatment” in 52 patients who received an infusion and followed for up to 4 years. Treatment conferred transfusion independence in patients with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, according to a press release from Vertex late last year.
Vertex noted in a new press statement that expanded approval means about 1000 patients aged 12 years or older will be eligible for the one-time treatment for this indication.
Exa-cel requires administration at authorized treatment centers experienced in stem cell transplantation.
The therapy, which has a list price of $2.2 million in the United States, should be available initially at nine authorized treatment centers early this year, with more to come, according to Vertex.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval, which comes more than 2 months ahead of a target action date of March 30, marks the second for the landmark therapy. The FDA greenlit the CRISPR gene therapy to treat sickle cell disease last December.
The autologous, ex vivo, CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy from Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR.
The transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia approval is based on data from pivotal studies showing “consistent and durable response to treatment” in 52 patients who received an infusion and followed for up to 4 years. Treatment conferred transfusion independence in patients with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, according to a press release from Vertex late last year.
Vertex noted in a new press statement that expanded approval means about 1000 patients aged 12 years or older will be eligible for the one-time treatment for this indication.
Exa-cel requires administration at authorized treatment centers experienced in stem cell transplantation.
The therapy, which has a list price of $2.2 million in the United States, should be available initially at nine authorized treatment centers early this year, with more to come, according to Vertex.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval, which comes more than 2 months ahead of a target action date of March 30, marks the second for the landmark therapy. The FDA greenlit the CRISPR gene therapy to treat sickle cell disease last December.
The autologous, ex vivo, CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy from Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR.
The transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia approval is based on data from pivotal studies showing “consistent and durable response to treatment” in 52 patients who received an infusion and followed for up to 4 years. Treatment conferred transfusion independence in patients with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, according to a press release from Vertex late last year.
Vertex noted in a new press statement that expanded approval means about 1000 patients aged 12 years or older will be eligible for the one-time treatment for this indication.
Exa-cel requires administration at authorized treatment centers experienced in stem cell transplantation.
The therapy, which has a list price of $2.2 million in the United States, should be available initially at nine authorized treatment centers early this year, with more to come, according to Vertex.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Serum Hormone Concentrations May Predict Aromatase Inhibitor Benefit for BC Prevention
, according to findings from a case-control study using data from a large breast cancer prevention trial.
In the randomized, placebo-controlled IBIS-II prevention trial of 3864 women aged 40-70 years at increased risk for developing breast cancer, treatment with the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole was associated with a 49% reduction in breast cancer incidence. At median follow-up of 131 months, breast cancer occurred in 85 (4.4%) versus 165 (8.5%) of patients in the anastrozole and placebo arms, respectively.
A preplanned case-control study involving 212 participants from the anastrozole group (72 cases and 140 controls) and 416 from the placebo group (142 cases and 274 controls), showed a significant trend toward increasing breast cancer risk with increasing estradiol-to-sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) ratio in the placebo group, but not in the anastrozole group (trend per quartile, 1.25 vs 1.06), reported Jack Cuzick, PhD, of the Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK, and colleagues.
A weaker but still significant effect was observed for the testosterone-SHBG ratio in the placebo group (trend, 1.21), but again, no such effect was seen in the anastrozole group (trend, 1.18).
A relative benefit was seen for anastrozole in estradiol concentration quartiles 2, 3, and 4 (relative risk [RR], 0.55, 0.54, and 0.56, respectively), but not in quartile 1.
The findings were published online December 6 in The Lancet Oncology.
Study participants were recruited from 153 breast cancer treatment centers across 18 countries and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 1 mg of oral anastrozole daily or placebo. For the case-control analysis, the investigators looked at the effects of baseline estradiol to SHBG ratio on the development of all breast cancers, including ductal carcinoma in situ. They also assessed the relative benefit of anastrozole versus placebo.
Case patients were those diagnosed with breast cancer after trial entry through data cutoff on October 22, 2019, and who had not used hormone replacement therapy within 3 months of trial entry or during the trial. Controls were participants without breast cancer who were randomly selected and matched according to treatment group, age, and follow-up time.
“Although the association between estradiol and breast cancer risk is well established, less is known about whether the concentrations of these hormones have an effect on the efficacy of preventive therapy with selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer,” the investigators noted, explaining that in the current analysis, they “tested the hypothesis that, for women with a low estradiol–SHBG ratio, anastrozole would provide little or no reduction in the risk of breast cancer.”
The results from the placebo group “confirm the increasing risk of breast cancer associated with higher estradiol and testosterone concentrations, and a decreasing risk associated with increasing SHBG concentrations in women who were not randomly allocated to receive anastrozole,” they said.
“However, to our knowledge, this is the first report of the effect of low concentrations of estradiol or testosterone on a lack of response to aromatase inhibitor treatment, either as a preventive measure or in the adjuvant setting,” they added. “These data provide support for the hypothesis that preventive therapy with an aromatase inhibitor is likely to be most effective for women with higher estradiol-to-SHBG ratios and, conversely, of little or no benefit for those with low estradiol-to-SHBG ratios.”
Thus, measurement of estradiol and SHBG concentrations might be helpful in making decisions about using inhibitors both for treatment and prevention, they continued, underscoring the importance of using assays sensitive enough to measure low estradiol concentrations in the plasma in postmenopausal women.
“We used a very sensitive liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectroscopy assay (lower limit of sensitivity of 3 pmol/L), which allowed us to accurately measure the low concentrations of estradiol and SHBG in the serum samples from our population of postmenopausal women. Wider use of this type of assay or a similar assay will be necessary to implement any of the actions suggested by this study,” they explained.
The findings “suggest a potential role for measuring estradiol, testosterone, and SHBG more widely, both in determining which individuals are at high risk and the likely response to endocrine treatment,” they concluded, noting that measuring serum hormones is inexpensive and, if used more routinely in high-risk clinics and for treatment of early breast cancer, could “substantially improve disease management.”
This study was funded by Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and DaCosta Fund. Dr. Cuzick reported receiving royalties from Cancer Research UK for commercial use of the IBIS (Tyrer-Cuzick) breast cancer risk evaluation software.
, according to findings from a case-control study using data from a large breast cancer prevention trial.
In the randomized, placebo-controlled IBIS-II prevention trial of 3864 women aged 40-70 years at increased risk for developing breast cancer, treatment with the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole was associated with a 49% reduction in breast cancer incidence. At median follow-up of 131 months, breast cancer occurred in 85 (4.4%) versus 165 (8.5%) of patients in the anastrozole and placebo arms, respectively.
A preplanned case-control study involving 212 participants from the anastrozole group (72 cases and 140 controls) and 416 from the placebo group (142 cases and 274 controls), showed a significant trend toward increasing breast cancer risk with increasing estradiol-to-sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) ratio in the placebo group, but not in the anastrozole group (trend per quartile, 1.25 vs 1.06), reported Jack Cuzick, PhD, of the Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK, and colleagues.
A weaker but still significant effect was observed for the testosterone-SHBG ratio in the placebo group (trend, 1.21), but again, no such effect was seen in the anastrozole group (trend, 1.18).
A relative benefit was seen for anastrozole in estradiol concentration quartiles 2, 3, and 4 (relative risk [RR], 0.55, 0.54, and 0.56, respectively), but not in quartile 1.
The findings were published online December 6 in The Lancet Oncology.
Study participants were recruited from 153 breast cancer treatment centers across 18 countries and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 1 mg of oral anastrozole daily or placebo. For the case-control analysis, the investigators looked at the effects of baseline estradiol to SHBG ratio on the development of all breast cancers, including ductal carcinoma in situ. They also assessed the relative benefit of anastrozole versus placebo.
Case patients were those diagnosed with breast cancer after trial entry through data cutoff on October 22, 2019, and who had not used hormone replacement therapy within 3 months of trial entry or during the trial. Controls were participants without breast cancer who were randomly selected and matched according to treatment group, age, and follow-up time.
“Although the association between estradiol and breast cancer risk is well established, less is known about whether the concentrations of these hormones have an effect on the efficacy of preventive therapy with selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer,” the investigators noted, explaining that in the current analysis, they “tested the hypothesis that, for women with a low estradiol–SHBG ratio, anastrozole would provide little or no reduction in the risk of breast cancer.”
The results from the placebo group “confirm the increasing risk of breast cancer associated with higher estradiol and testosterone concentrations, and a decreasing risk associated with increasing SHBG concentrations in women who were not randomly allocated to receive anastrozole,” they said.
“However, to our knowledge, this is the first report of the effect of low concentrations of estradiol or testosterone on a lack of response to aromatase inhibitor treatment, either as a preventive measure or in the adjuvant setting,” they added. “These data provide support for the hypothesis that preventive therapy with an aromatase inhibitor is likely to be most effective for women with higher estradiol-to-SHBG ratios and, conversely, of little or no benefit for those with low estradiol-to-SHBG ratios.”
Thus, measurement of estradiol and SHBG concentrations might be helpful in making decisions about using inhibitors both for treatment and prevention, they continued, underscoring the importance of using assays sensitive enough to measure low estradiol concentrations in the plasma in postmenopausal women.
“We used a very sensitive liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectroscopy assay (lower limit of sensitivity of 3 pmol/L), which allowed us to accurately measure the low concentrations of estradiol and SHBG in the serum samples from our population of postmenopausal women. Wider use of this type of assay or a similar assay will be necessary to implement any of the actions suggested by this study,” they explained.
The findings “suggest a potential role for measuring estradiol, testosterone, and SHBG more widely, both in determining which individuals are at high risk and the likely response to endocrine treatment,” they concluded, noting that measuring serum hormones is inexpensive and, if used more routinely in high-risk clinics and for treatment of early breast cancer, could “substantially improve disease management.”
This study was funded by Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and DaCosta Fund. Dr. Cuzick reported receiving royalties from Cancer Research UK for commercial use of the IBIS (Tyrer-Cuzick) breast cancer risk evaluation software.
, according to findings from a case-control study using data from a large breast cancer prevention trial.
In the randomized, placebo-controlled IBIS-II prevention trial of 3864 women aged 40-70 years at increased risk for developing breast cancer, treatment with the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole was associated with a 49% reduction in breast cancer incidence. At median follow-up of 131 months, breast cancer occurred in 85 (4.4%) versus 165 (8.5%) of patients in the anastrozole and placebo arms, respectively.
A preplanned case-control study involving 212 participants from the anastrozole group (72 cases and 140 controls) and 416 from the placebo group (142 cases and 274 controls), showed a significant trend toward increasing breast cancer risk with increasing estradiol-to-sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) ratio in the placebo group, but not in the anastrozole group (trend per quartile, 1.25 vs 1.06), reported Jack Cuzick, PhD, of the Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK, and colleagues.
A weaker but still significant effect was observed for the testosterone-SHBG ratio in the placebo group (trend, 1.21), but again, no such effect was seen in the anastrozole group (trend, 1.18).
A relative benefit was seen for anastrozole in estradiol concentration quartiles 2, 3, and 4 (relative risk [RR], 0.55, 0.54, and 0.56, respectively), but not in quartile 1.
The findings were published online December 6 in The Lancet Oncology.
Study participants were recruited from 153 breast cancer treatment centers across 18 countries and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 1 mg of oral anastrozole daily or placebo. For the case-control analysis, the investigators looked at the effects of baseline estradiol to SHBG ratio on the development of all breast cancers, including ductal carcinoma in situ. They also assessed the relative benefit of anastrozole versus placebo.
Case patients were those diagnosed with breast cancer after trial entry through data cutoff on October 22, 2019, and who had not used hormone replacement therapy within 3 months of trial entry or during the trial. Controls were participants without breast cancer who were randomly selected and matched according to treatment group, age, and follow-up time.
“Although the association between estradiol and breast cancer risk is well established, less is known about whether the concentrations of these hormones have an effect on the efficacy of preventive therapy with selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer,” the investigators noted, explaining that in the current analysis, they “tested the hypothesis that, for women with a low estradiol–SHBG ratio, anastrozole would provide little or no reduction in the risk of breast cancer.”
The results from the placebo group “confirm the increasing risk of breast cancer associated with higher estradiol and testosterone concentrations, and a decreasing risk associated with increasing SHBG concentrations in women who were not randomly allocated to receive anastrozole,” they said.
“However, to our knowledge, this is the first report of the effect of low concentrations of estradiol or testosterone on a lack of response to aromatase inhibitor treatment, either as a preventive measure or in the adjuvant setting,” they added. “These data provide support for the hypothesis that preventive therapy with an aromatase inhibitor is likely to be most effective for women with higher estradiol-to-SHBG ratios and, conversely, of little or no benefit for those with low estradiol-to-SHBG ratios.”
Thus, measurement of estradiol and SHBG concentrations might be helpful in making decisions about using inhibitors both for treatment and prevention, they continued, underscoring the importance of using assays sensitive enough to measure low estradiol concentrations in the plasma in postmenopausal women.
“We used a very sensitive liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectroscopy assay (lower limit of sensitivity of 3 pmol/L), which allowed us to accurately measure the low concentrations of estradiol and SHBG in the serum samples from our population of postmenopausal women. Wider use of this type of assay or a similar assay will be necessary to implement any of the actions suggested by this study,” they explained.
The findings “suggest a potential role for measuring estradiol, testosterone, and SHBG more widely, both in determining which individuals are at high risk and the likely response to endocrine treatment,” they concluded, noting that measuring serum hormones is inexpensive and, if used more routinely in high-risk clinics and for treatment of early breast cancer, could “substantially improve disease management.”
This study was funded by Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and DaCosta Fund. Dr. Cuzick reported receiving royalties from Cancer Research UK for commercial use of the IBIS (Tyrer-Cuzick) breast cancer risk evaluation software.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
New Multiple Myeloma Staging Systems Outperform the Standard
.
The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.
To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.
The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients.
Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting.
Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.
Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.
The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.
When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.
With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.
In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin.
Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year.
Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively).
Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7).
Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.
MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.
Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said.
Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”
Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.
To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.
The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients.
Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting.
Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.
Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.
The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.
When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.
With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.
In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin.
Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year.
Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively).
Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7).
Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.
MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.
Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said.
Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”
Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.
To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.
The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients.
Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting.
Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.
Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.
The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.
When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.
With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.
In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin.
Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year.
Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively).
Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7).
Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.
MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.
Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said.
Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”
Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2023