AVAHO

Much attention has been given recently to the idea of detecting many different types of cancer from a single blood test, and a new test claiming to do that has just been reported.

The leader in this field is the Galleri test (from GRAIL) which is already in clinical use in some health care networks across the United States. That test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA (cfDNA) in a blood sample.

The new test, under development by Swedish biotechnology company Elypta AB, has a different premise. It can detect 14 cancer types based on the analysis of glycosaminoglycans, which are a diverse group of polysaccharides that are altered by the presence of tumors. Using plasma and urine samples, the method had a 41.6%-62.3% sensitivity for detecting stage I cancer at 95% specificity.

In comparison, say the authors, other assays have reported 39%-73% sensitivity to stage I cancers, but these estimates are usually limited to 12 cancer types that are considered “high-signal,” and the assays perform poorly in cancers that emit little cfDNA, such as genitourinary and brain malignancies.

“The main advantage of glycosaminoglycans appears to be that they change in the blood and urine at the earliest stages of cancer,” said study author Francesco Gatto, PhD, founder and chief scientific officer at Elypta. “Consequently, this method showed an impressive detection rate in stage I compared to other emerging methods.”

The study was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Combine tests?

Dr. Gatto commented that he “could envision that one day we may be able to combine these methods.”

“The same blood specimen could be used to test both glycosaminoglycans and genomic biomarkers,” said Dr. Gatto. “This strategy could hopefully detect even more cancers than with either method alone, and the resulting performance may well be sufficient as a one-stop-shop screening program.”

So how does the new test from Elypta compare with the Galleri test?

“Galleri and similar methods mostly focused on information coming from molecules of DNA naturally floating in the blood,” explained Dr. Gatto. “It makes sense to conduct research there because cancers typically start with events in the DNA.”

He noted that the current study explored a new layer of information, molecules called glycosaminoglycans, that participate in the metabolism of cancer.

“This method detected many cancers that the previous methods missed, and a substantial proportion of these were at stage I,” said Dr. Gatto. “Cancer is a complex disease, so the most layers of information we can probe noninvasively, say with a blood test, the more likely we can catch more cancers at its earliest stage.”

Other platforms typically rely on sequencing and detecting cancer-derived fractions of cfDNA, but these methods have challenges that can interfere with their usage. For example, some cancer types do not shed sufficient cfDNA and it cannot be accurately measured.

“An advantage on focusing on glycosaminoglycans is that the method does not require next-generation sequencing or similarly complex assays because glycosaminoglycans are informative with less than 10 simultaneous measurements as opposed to Galleri that looks at over 1 million DNA methylation sites,” he said.

“This makes the assay behind the test much cheaper and robust – we estimated a 5-10 times lower cost difference,” Dr. Gatto said.
 

Prospective and comparative data needed

In a comment, Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic explained that the “only accurate way to know how a test will perform in an intended-use population is to actually test it in that population. It’s not possible to extrapolate results directly from a case-control study.”

Cancers shed many different biologic markers into body fluids, but which of these signals will be best to serve as the basis of an MCED (multi-cancer detection test) that has clinical utility in a screening population has yet to be determined, he noted. “And it’s possible that no single test will be optimum for every clinical situation.”

“The results of this study appear promising, but it is not possible to claim superiority of one test over another based on individual case-control studies because of uncontrolled differences in the selected populations,” Dr. Klein continued. “The only scientifically accurate way to do this is to perform different tests on the same patient samples in a head-to-head comparison.”

There is only one study that he is aware of that has done this recently, in which multiple different assays looking at various signals in cell-free DNA were directly compared on the same samples (Cancer cell. 2022;40:1537-49.e12). “A targeted methylation assay that is the basis for Galleri was best for the lowest limit of detection and for predicting cancer site of origin,” said Dr. Klein.

Another expert agreed that a direct head-to-head study is needed to compare assays. “Based on this data, you cannot say that this method is better than the other one because that requires a comparative study,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

Metabolomics is interesting, and the data are encouraging, he continued. “But this is a multicancer early detection test and metabolism changes may vary from cancer type to cancer type. I’m not sure that the metabolism of lung cancer is the same as that of a gynecologic cancer.”

Dr. Hirsch also pointed out that there could also be confounding factors. “They have excluded inflammatory disease, but there can be other variables such as smoking,” he said. “Overall it gives some interesting perspectives but I would like to see more prospective validation and studies in specific disease groups, and eventually comparative studies with other methodologies.”
 

Study details

The authors evaluated if plasma and urine free GAGomes (free glycosaminoglycan profiles) deviated from baseline physiological levels in 14 cancer types and could serve as metabolic cancer biomarkers. They also then validated using free GAGomes for MCED in an external population with 2,064 samples obtained from 1,260 patients with cancer and healthy individuals.

In an in vivo cancer progression model, they observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic free GAGomes and then developed three machine-learning models based on urine (n_urine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (n_plasma = 517 cancer vs. 425 healthy) free GAGomes that were able to detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 (with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity).

To assess if altered GAGome features associated with cancer suggested more aggressive tumor biology, they correlated each score with overall survival. The median follow-up time was 17 months in the plasma cohort (n = 370 across 13 cancer types), 15 months in the urine cohort (n = 162 across 4 cancer types), and 15 months in the combined cohort (n = 152 across 4 cancer types).

They found that all three scores independently predicted overall survival in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.29; P = .0009 for plasma; HR, 1.79; P = .0009 for urine; HR, 1.91; P = .0004 for combined) after adjusting for cancer type, age, sex, and stage IV or high-grade disease.

These findings showed an association of free GAGome alterations with aggressive cancer phenotypes and suggested that scores below the 95% specificity cutoff might have a better prognosis, the authors comment.

In addition, other analyses showed that free GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. And finally, to confirm whether the free GAGome MCED scores could be used for screening, a validation analysis was conducted using a typical “screening population,” which requires at least 99% specificity. The combined free GAGomes were able to predict a poor prognosis of any cancer type within 18 months and with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; n = 121 and 49 cases).

Dr. Gatto believes that these results, as well as those from other studies looking at glycosaminoglycans as cancer biomarkers, will lead to the next steps of development. “But I speculate that this test could be most useful to assess in a cheap, practical, and noninvasive manner if a person at increased risk of cancer should be selected for cancer screening as part of established or emerging screening programs.”

The study was sponsored by Elypta. Dr. Gatto is listed as an inventor in patent applications related to the biomarkers described in this study and later assigned to Elypta, and is a shareholder and employed at Elypta. Dr. Hirsch reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein is a consultant for GRAIL and an investigator for CCGA and Pathfinder.

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

Much attention has been given recently to the idea of detecting many different types of cancer from a single blood test, and a new test claiming to do that has just been reported.

The leader in this field is the Galleri test (from GRAIL) which is already in clinical use in some health care networks across the United States. That test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA (cfDNA) in a blood sample.

The new test, under development by Swedish biotechnology company Elypta AB, has a different premise. It can detect 14 cancer types based on the analysis of glycosaminoglycans, which are a diverse group of polysaccharides that are altered by the presence of tumors. Using plasma and urine samples, the method had a 41.6%-62.3% sensitivity for detecting stage I cancer at 95% specificity.

In comparison, say the authors, other assays have reported 39%-73% sensitivity to stage I cancers, but these estimates are usually limited to 12 cancer types that are considered “high-signal,” and the assays perform poorly in cancers that emit little cfDNA, such as genitourinary and brain malignancies.

“The main advantage of glycosaminoglycans appears to be that they change in the blood and urine at the earliest stages of cancer,” said study author Francesco Gatto, PhD, founder and chief scientific officer at Elypta. “Consequently, this method showed an impressive detection rate in stage I compared to other emerging methods.”

The study was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Combine tests?

Dr. Gatto commented that he “could envision that one day we may be able to combine these methods.”

“The same blood specimen could be used to test both glycosaminoglycans and genomic biomarkers,” said Dr. Gatto. “This strategy could hopefully detect even more cancers than with either method alone, and the resulting performance may well be sufficient as a one-stop-shop screening program.”

So how does the new test from Elypta compare with the Galleri test?

“Galleri and similar methods mostly focused on information coming from molecules of DNA naturally floating in the blood,” explained Dr. Gatto. “It makes sense to conduct research there because cancers typically start with events in the DNA.”

He noted that the current study explored a new layer of information, molecules called glycosaminoglycans, that participate in the metabolism of cancer.

“This method detected many cancers that the previous methods missed, and a substantial proportion of these were at stage I,” said Dr. Gatto. “Cancer is a complex disease, so the most layers of information we can probe noninvasively, say with a blood test, the more likely we can catch more cancers at its earliest stage.”

Other platforms typically rely on sequencing and detecting cancer-derived fractions of cfDNA, but these methods have challenges that can interfere with their usage. For example, some cancer types do not shed sufficient cfDNA and it cannot be accurately measured.

“An advantage on focusing on glycosaminoglycans is that the method does not require next-generation sequencing or similarly complex assays because glycosaminoglycans are informative with less than 10 simultaneous measurements as opposed to Galleri that looks at over 1 million DNA methylation sites,” he said.

“This makes the assay behind the test much cheaper and robust – we estimated a 5-10 times lower cost difference,” Dr. Gatto said.
 

Prospective and comparative data needed

In a comment, Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic explained that the “only accurate way to know how a test will perform in an intended-use population is to actually test it in that population. It’s not possible to extrapolate results directly from a case-control study.”

Cancers shed many different biologic markers into body fluids, but which of these signals will be best to serve as the basis of an MCED (multi-cancer detection test) that has clinical utility in a screening population has yet to be determined, he noted. “And it’s possible that no single test will be optimum for every clinical situation.”

“The results of this study appear promising, but it is not possible to claim superiority of one test over another based on individual case-control studies because of uncontrolled differences in the selected populations,” Dr. Klein continued. “The only scientifically accurate way to do this is to perform different tests on the same patient samples in a head-to-head comparison.”

There is only one study that he is aware of that has done this recently, in which multiple different assays looking at various signals in cell-free DNA were directly compared on the same samples (Cancer cell. 2022;40:1537-49.e12). “A targeted methylation assay that is the basis for Galleri was best for the lowest limit of detection and for predicting cancer site of origin,” said Dr. Klein.

Another expert agreed that a direct head-to-head study is needed to compare assays. “Based on this data, you cannot say that this method is better than the other one because that requires a comparative study,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

Metabolomics is interesting, and the data are encouraging, he continued. “But this is a multicancer early detection test and metabolism changes may vary from cancer type to cancer type. I’m not sure that the metabolism of lung cancer is the same as that of a gynecologic cancer.”

Dr. Hirsch also pointed out that there could also be confounding factors. “They have excluded inflammatory disease, but there can be other variables such as smoking,” he said. “Overall it gives some interesting perspectives but I would like to see more prospective validation and studies in specific disease groups, and eventually comparative studies with other methodologies.”
 

Study details

The authors evaluated if plasma and urine free GAGomes (free glycosaminoglycan profiles) deviated from baseline physiological levels in 14 cancer types and could serve as metabolic cancer biomarkers. They also then validated using free GAGomes for MCED in an external population with 2,064 samples obtained from 1,260 patients with cancer and healthy individuals.

In an in vivo cancer progression model, they observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic free GAGomes and then developed three machine-learning models based on urine (n_urine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (n_plasma = 517 cancer vs. 425 healthy) free GAGomes that were able to detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 (with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity).

To assess if altered GAGome features associated with cancer suggested more aggressive tumor biology, they correlated each score with overall survival. The median follow-up time was 17 months in the plasma cohort (n = 370 across 13 cancer types), 15 months in the urine cohort (n = 162 across 4 cancer types), and 15 months in the combined cohort (n = 152 across 4 cancer types).

They found that all three scores independently predicted overall survival in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.29; P = .0009 for plasma; HR, 1.79; P = .0009 for urine; HR, 1.91; P = .0004 for combined) after adjusting for cancer type, age, sex, and stage IV or high-grade disease.

These findings showed an association of free GAGome alterations with aggressive cancer phenotypes and suggested that scores below the 95% specificity cutoff might have a better prognosis, the authors comment.

In addition, other analyses showed that free GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. And finally, to confirm whether the free GAGome MCED scores could be used for screening, a validation analysis was conducted using a typical “screening population,” which requires at least 99% specificity. The combined free GAGomes were able to predict a poor prognosis of any cancer type within 18 months and with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; n = 121 and 49 cases).

Dr. Gatto believes that these results, as well as those from other studies looking at glycosaminoglycans as cancer biomarkers, will lead to the next steps of development. “But I speculate that this test could be most useful to assess in a cheap, practical, and noninvasive manner if a person at increased risk of cancer should be selected for cancer screening as part of established or emerging screening programs.”

The study was sponsored by Elypta. Dr. Gatto is listed as an inventor in patent applications related to the biomarkers described in this study and later assigned to Elypta, and is a shareholder and employed at Elypta. Dr. Hirsch reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein is a consultant for GRAIL and an investigator for CCGA and Pathfinder.

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

Much attention has been given recently to the idea of detecting many different types of cancer from a single blood test, and a new test claiming to do that has just been reported.

The leader in this field is the Galleri test (from GRAIL) which is already in clinical use in some health care networks across the United States. That test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA (cfDNA) in a blood sample.

The new test, under development by Swedish biotechnology company Elypta AB, has a different premise. It can detect 14 cancer types based on the analysis of glycosaminoglycans, which are a diverse group of polysaccharides that are altered by the presence of tumors. Using plasma and urine samples, the method had a 41.6%-62.3% sensitivity for detecting stage I cancer at 95% specificity.

In comparison, say the authors, other assays have reported 39%-73% sensitivity to stage I cancers, but these estimates are usually limited to 12 cancer types that are considered “high-signal,” and the assays perform poorly in cancers that emit little cfDNA, such as genitourinary and brain malignancies.

“The main advantage of glycosaminoglycans appears to be that they change in the blood and urine at the earliest stages of cancer,” said study author Francesco Gatto, PhD, founder and chief scientific officer at Elypta. “Consequently, this method showed an impressive detection rate in stage I compared to other emerging methods.”

The study was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Combine tests?

Dr. Gatto commented that he “could envision that one day we may be able to combine these methods.”

“The same blood specimen could be used to test both glycosaminoglycans and genomic biomarkers,” said Dr. Gatto. “This strategy could hopefully detect even more cancers than with either method alone, and the resulting performance may well be sufficient as a one-stop-shop screening program.”

So how does the new test from Elypta compare with the Galleri test?

“Galleri and similar methods mostly focused on information coming from molecules of DNA naturally floating in the blood,” explained Dr. Gatto. “It makes sense to conduct research there because cancers typically start with events in the DNA.”

He noted that the current study explored a new layer of information, molecules called glycosaminoglycans, that participate in the metabolism of cancer.

“This method detected many cancers that the previous methods missed, and a substantial proportion of these were at stage I,” said Dr. Gatto. “Cancer is a complex disease, so the most layers of information we can probe noninvasively, say with a blood test, the more likely we can catch more cancers at its earliest stage.”

Other platforms typically rely on sequencing and detecting cancer-derived fractions of cfDNA, but these methods have challenges that can interfere with their usage. For example, some cancer types do not shed sufficient cfDNA and it cannot be accurately measured.

“An advantage on focusing on glycosaminoglycans is that the method does not require next-generation sequencing or similarly complex assays because glycosaminoglycans are informative with less than 10 simultaneous measurements as opposed to Galleri that looks at over 1 million DNA methylation sites,” he said.

“This makes the assay behind the test much cheaper and robust – we estimated a 5-10 times lower cost difference,” Dr. Gatto said.
 

Prospective and comparative data needed

In a comment, Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic explained that the “only accurate way to know how a test will perform in an intended-use population is to actually test it in that population. It’s not possible to extrapolate results directly from a case-control study.”

Cancers shed many different biologic markers into body fluids, but which of these signals will be best to serve as the basis of an MCED (multi-cancer detection test) that has clinical utility in a screening population has yet to be determined, he noted. “And it’s possible that no single test will be optimum for every clinical situation.”

“The results of this study appear promising, but it is not possible to claim superiority of one test over another based on individual case-control studies because of uncontrolled differences in the selected populations,” Dr. Klein continued. “The only scientifically accurate way to do this is to perform different tests on the same patient samples in a head-to-head comparison.”

There is only one study that he is aware of that has done this recently, in which multiple different assays looking at various signals in cell-free DNA were directly compared on the same samples (Cancer cell. 2022;40:1537-49.e12). “A targeted methylation assay that is the basis for Galleri was best for the lowest limit of detection and for predicting cancer site of origin,” said Dr. Klein.

Another expert agreed that a direct head-to-head study is needed to compare assays. “Based on this data, you cannot say that this method is better than the other one because that requires a comparative study,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

Metabolomics is interesting, and the data are encouraging, he continued. “But this is a multicancer early detection test and metabolism changes may vary from cancer type to cancer type. I’m not sure that the metabolism of lung cancer is the same as that of a gynecologic cancer.”

Dr. Hirsch also pointed out that there could also be confounding factors. “They have excluded inflammatory disease, but there can be other variables such as smoking,” he said. “Overall it gives some interesting perspectives but I would like to see more prospective validation and studies in specific disease groups, and eventually comparative studies with other methodologies.”
 

Study details

The authors evaluated if plasma and urine free GAGomes (free glycosaminoglycan profiles) deviated from baseline physiological levels in 14 cancer types and could serve as metabolic cancer biomarkers. They also then validated using free GAGomes for MCED in an external population with 2,064 samples obtained from 1,260 patients with cancer and healthy individuals.

In an in vivo cancer progression model, they observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic free GAGomes and then developed three machine-learning models based on urine (n_urine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (n_plasma = 517 cancer vs. 425 healthy) free GAGomes that were able to detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 (with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity).

To assess if altered GAGome features associated with cancer suggested more aggressive tumor biology, they correlated each score with overall survival. The median follow-up time was 17 months in the plasma cohort (n = 370 across 13 cancer types), 15 months in the urine cohort (n = 162 across 4 cancer types), and 15 months in the combined cohort (n = 152 across 4 cancer types).

They found that all three scores independently predicted overall survival in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.29; P = .0009 for plasma; HR, 1.79; P = .0009 for urine; HR, 1.91; P = .0004 for combined) after adjusting for cancer type, age, sex, and stage IV or high-grade disease.

These findings showed an association of free GAGome alterations with aggressive cancer phenotypes and suggested that scores below the 95% specificity cutoff might have a better prognosis, the authors comment.

In addition, other analyses showed that free GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. And finally, to confirm whether the free GAGome MCED scores could be used for screening, a validation analysis was conducted using a typical “screening population,” which requires at least 99% specificity. The combined free GAGomes were able to predict a poor prognosis of any cancer type within 18 months and with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; n = 121 and 49 cases).

Dr. Gatto believes that these results, as well as those from other studies looking at glycosaminoglycans as cancer biomarkers, will lead to the next steps of development. “But I speculate that this test could be most useful to assess in a cheap, practical, and noninvasive manner if a person at increased risk of cancer should be selected for cancer screening as part of established or emerging screening programs.”

The study was sponsored by Elypta. Dr. Gatto is listed as an inventor in patent applications related to the biomarkers described in this study and later assigned to Elypta, and is a shareholder and employed at Elypta. Dr. Hirsch reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein is a consultant for GRAIL and an investigator for CCGA and Pathfinder.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

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

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

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

The financial burden of contemporary care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is high for Medicare beneficiaries, a new analysis shows.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, median Medicare payments exceed $65,000 and out-of-pocket costs top $10,000.

Even after adjustment for the presence of cirrhosis and its related costs, patients with HCC still have Medicare payments exceeding $50,000 and out-of-pocket costs topping $7000.

Amit Singal, MD, of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Common and costly

HCC, the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and is projected to become the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2040, the researchers wrote.

The treatment landscape for HCC has changed over the past decade, with expanded surgical options, introduction of radiation-based therapies, and approval of immunotherapies – all of which are costly.

Yet the magnitude of financial burden of HCC therapy has been understudied, the researchers noted.

To investigate, Dr. Singal and colleagues evaluated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data for 4,525 adults with traditional Medicare coverage who were diagnosed with HCC between 2011 and 2015 and a propensity-matched cohort of 4,525 adults with cirrhosis but no HCC as a comparator group to tease out HCC-specific costs beyond those related to cirrhosis. Patients in Medicare managed care were excluded because their cost information is not available in the database.

In the first year after a diagnosis of HCC, the median total Medicare payments were $66,338 (interquartile range [IQR], $30,931-$158,740) and patient liabilities (a proxy for out-of-pocket costs) were $10,008 (IQR, $5,427-$19,669).

First-year costs were higher for patients with HCC than matched patients without HCC; the former group incurred median incremental Medicare payments of $50,110 (IQR, $14,242-$136,239) and patient liabilities of $7,166 (IQR, $2,401-$16,099), the investigators found.

Patients with early-stage HCC had lower incremental patient liabilities (median, $4,195 vs. $8,238) and Medicare payments (median, $28,207 vs. $59,509) than did their peers with larger tumor burden.
 

NAFLD notably tied to higher costs

Factors associated with higher HCC-related costs were nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology, higher comorbidities, presence of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and larger tumor burden.

The researchers said that the link between NAFLD and higher costs is notable, given that NAFLD is an increasingly common underlying cause of HCC.

The link between larger tumor burden and higher costs underscores “another benefit of HCC surveillance and early detection,” they added.

“By separating the financial liabilities borne by patients and Medicare, we provide a clearer outlook of how cancer-related costs are distributed between patients and public payers,” Dr. Singal and colleagues said.

“Our findings will inform policy interventions and will help formulate better financial supports targeting the most vulnerable HCC patients,” they concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Singal has been on advisory boards and served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, and TARGET RWE.

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

A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog. 

Alice C. Chang, PhD, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years.

In its findings, ORI said Dr. Chang, who was an associate professor of basic medical sciences at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Ind., “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated data from the same mouse models or cell lines by reusing the data, with or without manipulation, to represent unrelated experiments from different mouse models or cell lines with different treatments in three hundred eighty-four (384) figure panels in sixteen (16) grant applications.”

Two of the grant applications were funded. Dr. Chang received $688,196 from the National Cancer Institute, a division of NIH, from 2018 to 2019 for “Targeting metformin-directed stem cell fate in triple negative breast cancer.” The other grant ORI says was submitted in 2014 and funded, “Targeting cell polarity machinery to exhaust breast cancer stem cell pool,” does not show up in NIH RePorter. The rest of the grants were not approved. 

We found a Chun-Ju Chang who is dean of the College of Life Sciences at China Medical University in Taiwan and has published papers with a group that Chun-Ju Chang at Purdue also published with. She did not immediately respond to our request for comment. 

ORI’s finding also stated Dr. Chang faked data in two papers supported by government funding by reusing figures reporting gene expression in mice and cells after drug treatments, relabeling them to say they showed the results of different experiments. According to the agency, she has agreed to request corrections for the papers: 

“Leptin–STAT3–G9a Signaling Promotes Obesity-Mediated Breast Cancer Progression,” published in May 2015 in Cancer Research and cited 83 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

“Retinoic acid directs breast cancer cell state changes through regulation of TET2-PKC-zeta pathway,” published in February 2017 in Oncogene and cited 26 times. 

Between the two papers and 15 of the grant applications, ORI said that Dr. Chang reused gene expression data, sometimes with manipulation, in 119 figure panels. She reused other types of data and images in hundreds of figures across multiple grant applications, ORI found. 

As well as correcting the two papers, Dr. Chang agreed to a 10-year ban from all federal contracting, including grant funding. She also agreed not to serve in any advisory or consulting role with the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for that time period.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog. 

Alice C. Chang, PhD, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years.

In its findings, ORI said Dr. Chang, who was an associate professor of basic medical sciences at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Ind., “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated data from the same mouse models or cell lines by reusing the data, with or without manipulation, to represent unrelated experiments from different mouse models or cell lines with different treatments in three hundred eighty-four (384) figure panels in sixteen (16) grant applications.”

Two of the grant applications were funded. Dr. Chang received $688,196 from the National Cancer Institute, a division of NIH, from 2018 to 2019 for “Targeting metformin-directed stem cell fate in triple negative breast cancer.” The other grant ORI says was submitted in 2014 and funded, “Targeting cell polarity machinery to exhaust breast cancer stem cell pool,” does not show up in NIH RePorter. The rest of the grants were not approved. 

We found a Chun-Ju Chang who is dean of the College of Life Sciences at China Medical University in Taiwan and has published papers with a group that Chun-Ju Chang at Purdue also published with. She did not immediately respond to our request for comment. 

ORI’s finding also stated Dr. Chang faked data in two papers supported by government funding by reusing figures reporting gene expression in mice and cells after drug treatments, relabeling them to say they showed the results of different experiments. According to the agency, she has agreed to request corrections for the papers: 

“Leptin–STAT3–G9a Signaling Promotes Obesity-Mediated Breast Cancer Progression,” published in May 2015 in Cancer Research and cited 83 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

“Retinoic acid directs breast cancer cell state changes through regulation of TET2-PKC-zeta pathway,” published in February 2017 in Oncogene and cited 26 times. 

Between the two papers and 15 of the grant applications, ORI said that Dr. Chang reused gene expression data, sometimes with manipulation, in 119 figure panels. She reused other types of data and images in hundreds of figures across multiple grant applications, ORI found. 

As well as correcting the two papers, Dr. Chang agreed to a 10-year ban from all federal contracting, including grant funding. She also agreed not to serve in any advisory or consulting role with the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for that time period.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog. 

Alice C. Chang, PhD, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years.

In its findings, ORI said Dr. Chang, who was an associate professor of basic medical sciences at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Ind., “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated data from the same mouse models or cell lines by reusing the data, with or without manipulation, to represent unrelated experiments from different mouse models or cell lines with different treatments in three hundred eighty-four (384) figure panels in sixteen (16) grant applications.”

Two of the grant applications were funded. Dr. Chang received $688,196 from the National Cancer Institute, a division of NIH, from 2018 to 2019 for “Targeting metformin-directed stem cell fate in triple negative breast cancer.” The other grant ORI says was submitted in 2014 and funded, “Targeting cell polarity machinery to exhaust breast cancer stem cell pool,” does not show up in NIH RePorter. The rest of the grants were not approved. 

We found a Chun-Ju Chang who is dean of the College of Life Sciences at China Medical University in Taiwan and has published papers with a group that Chun-Ju Chang at Purdue also published with. She did not immediately respond to our request for comment. 

ORI’s finding also stated Dr. Chang faked data in two papers supported by government funding by reusing figures reporting gene expression in mice and cells after drug treatments, relabeling them to say they showed the results of different experiments. According to the agency, she has agreed to request corrections for the papers: 

“Leptin–STAT3–G9a Signaling Promotes Obesity-Mediated Breast Cancer Progression,” published in May 2015 in Cancer Research and cited 83 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

“Retinoic acid directs breast cancer cell state changes through regulation of TET2-PKC-zeta pathway,” published in February 2017 in Oncogene and cited 26 times. 

Between the two papers and 15 of the grant applications, ORI said that Dr. Chang reused gene expression data, sometimes with manipulation, in 119 figure panels. She reused other types of data and images in hundreds of figures across multiple grant applications, ORI found. 

As well as correcting the two papers, Dr. Chang agreed to a 10-year ban from all federal contracting, including grant funding. She also agreed not to serve in any advisory or consulting role with the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for that time period.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

Radiation therapy can cause long-term dysphagia that seriously affects quality of life for survivors of head and neck (H&N) cancer.^1-3 Numerous studies have linked pharyngeal constrictor dose to long-term dysphagia, but conclusions about the dose distribution that can be safely tolerated have been inconsistent. For example, a group from the Netherlands found that the mean dose to the superior pharyngeal constrictor muscle and the supraglottic larynx were each predictive of dysphagia.⁴ A subsequent Vanderbilt study refuted these findings, reporting that these structures were not predictive but that dose to the inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle was.⁵ Other studies have connected late dysphagia with dose to the middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle, total larynx, oral cavity, contralateral submandibular gland, contralateral parotid gland, or a combination of these structures.^6-14 NRG Oncology trials commonly evaluate dose to the “uninvolved pharynx,” which is the total pharyngeal constrictor muscle volume minus the planning target volume for the lowest dose target volume. NRG H&N trials 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 all use uninvolved pharynx mean dose  ≤ 45 Gy as a constraint to judge radiation plan quality.

Differences in methodology or patient population may explain the inconsistency of prior studies on dosimetric predictors of dysphagia, but it is possible that these studies did not evaluate the optimal metric for dysphagia. This study evaluates a novel organ at risk, the contralateral pharyngeal constrictor muscle, to determine whether dose to this structure is predictive of late swallowing function. The study also compares a constraint based on this structure to the NRG uninvolved pharynx constraint mentioned earlier.

Methods

This study is a retrospective review of patients treated at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. Patients were identified by searching the VA Cancer Registry for patients treated for H&N squamous cell carcinoma between September 1, 2016, and August 30, 2019. Eligible sites included cancers of the nasopharynx, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx and oral cavity, as well as H&N cancer of an unknown primary site. Only patients treated with primary radiation with concurrent systemic therapy were included. Patients were excluded if they had prior surgery or radiation to the H&N.

The pharyngeal constrictor muscles were contoured per the techniques described by Bhide and colleagues.¹¹ The contralateral constrictor was defined as the half of the constrictor volume contralateral to the primary site. For midline tumors, the side of the neck with a lower volume of lymph node metastases was judged to be the contralateral side.

Results

The VA Cancer Registry identified 113 patients treated for H&N cancer during the study period. Of these, 55 patients met the inclusion criteria. No patients were lost to follow-up. The median follow-up was 29 months. The median age was 67 years (range, 41-83) (Table 1).

All patients were treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Patients treated with a sequential boost had an initial dose of 54 Gy and/or 50 Gy, followed by a boost to a total of 70 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction. Patients treated with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique received 69.96 Gy in 33 fractions, with elective volumes treated to 54.45 Gy in 33 fractions. Both patients with nasopharyngeal cancer were treated with SIB plans and had an intermediate dose volume of 59.4 Gy.

Systemic therapy was weekly cisplatin in 41 patients (75%) and cetuximab in 14 (25%). Twenty percent of patients receiving cisplatin switched to an alternative agent during treatment, most commonly carboplatin.

Forty-nine patients (89%) had a G-tube placed before starting radiation. G-tubes were in place for an interval of 0 to 47 months (mean, 8.6); 12 (22%) had a G-tube > 12 months. After completion of radiation, 18 patients (33%) had an abnormal MBS. These were done 1 to 50 months (mean, 14.8) after completion of radiation. Abnormal MBS occurred ≥ 12 months after radiation in 9 patients, 5 of whom had their G-tube in place for less than a year.

Forty-six patients (84%) survived more than 1 year and could be evaluated for late swallowing function. One-year dysphagia was seen in 17 (37%) of these patients. Recurrence was seen in 20 patients (36%), with locoregional recurrence in 12 (60%) of these cases. Recurrence occurred at a range of 0 to 15 months (mean, 5.6). Neither recurrence (P = .69) nor locoregional recurrence (P = .11) was associated with increased 1-year dysphagia.

In patients who could be evaluated for long-term swallowing function, contralateral constrictor V60 ranged from 0% to 100% (median, 51%). V60 was < 40% in 18 patients (39%). With V60 < 40%, there was a 6% rate of 1-year dysphagia compared with 57% for V60 ≥ 40% (P < .001).

Patients with contralateral constrictor V60 < 40 and V60 ≥ 40 both had a mean age of 65 years. χ² analysis did not show a difference in T stage or systemic treatment but did show that patients with V60 < 40% were more likely to have N1 disease (P = .01), and less likely to have N2 disease (P = .01) compared with patients with V60 ≥ 40%. The difference in 1-year dysphagia between N0 to N1 patients (27%) and N2 to N3 patients (46%) was not statistically significant (P = .19).

In patients who could be evaluated for long-term swallowing function, the uninvolved pharynx volume median of the total constrictor volume was 32% (range, < 1%-62%). The uninvolved pharynx mean dose ranged from 28 to 68 Gy (median, 45). When the uninvolved pharynx mean dose was < 45 Gy, 1-year dysphagia was 22% compared with 52% with a dose ≥ 45 Gy (P = .03).

Discussion

This is the first study to link contralateral constrictor dose to long-term dysphagia in patients treated with radiation for H&N cancer. Editing the boost volume off air cavities was associated with lower contralateral constrictor V60 and with less long-term dysphagia. This may indicate that optimizing plans to meet a contralateral constrictor constraint can reduce rates of long-term dysphagia.

The most useful clinical predictors are those that identify a patient at low risk for toxicity. These constraints are useful because they reassure physicians that treatments will have a favorable risk/benefit ratio while identifying plans that may need modification before starting treatment.

The contralateral constrictor outperformed the uninvolved pharynx in identifying patients at low risk for long-term dysphagia. This difference could not be overcome by decreasing the threshold of the pharynx constraint, as 17% of patients with dysphagia had a mean dose of < 40 Gy to the uninvolved pharynx, which was not statistically significant.

An advantage of contralateral constrictor is that it is independent of planning target volume (PTV) size. The uninvolved pharynx structure depends on the PTV contour, so it may obscure a connection between PTV size and dysphagia.

In the context of a clinical trial, only measuring dose to the uninvolved pharynx may allow more plans to meet constraints, but even in NRG trials, physicians have some control over target volumes. For example, NRG HN009, a national trial for patients with H&N cancer, recommends editing the CTV_7000 (clinical target volume treated to 70 Gy) off air cavities but does not define how much the volume should be cropped or specify protocol violations if the volume is not cropped.¹⁵ Furthermore, constraints used in clinical trials are often adopted for use outside the trial, where physicians have extensive control over target volumes.

The broad range of uninvolved pharynx volume relative to total constrictor volume confounds predictions using this variable. For example, according to the NRG constraint, a patient with an uninvolved pharynx mean dose of 44 Gy will have a low risk of dysphagia even if this structure is only 1% of the total constrictor. The contralateral constrictor is always about 50% of the total constrictor volume, which means that predictions using this structure will not be confounded by the same variation in volume size.

Figure 2 shows a representative patient who met the NRG uninvolved pharynx constraint but developed long-term dysphagia.

Limitations

This study is limited by its single institution, retrospective design, small sample size, and by all patients being male. The high correlation between air cavity editing and the use of SIB makes it impossible to assess the impact of each technique individually. Patients with contralateral constrictor V60 < 40% were less likely to have N2 disease, but N2 to N3 disease did not predict higher 1-year dysphagia, so the difference in N-category cannot fully explain the difference in 1-year dysphagia. It is possible that unreported factors, such as CTV, may contribute significantly to swallowing function. Nevertheless, within the study population, contralateral constrictor dose was able to identify a group with a low rate of long-term dysphagia.

Conclusions

Contralateral constrictor dose is a promising predictor of late dysphagia for patients with H&N cancer treated with radiation with concurrent systemic therapy. Contralateral constrictor V60 < 40% was able to identify a group of patients with a low rate of 1-year dysphagia in this single-center retrospective study. The correlation between air cavity editing and contralateral constrictor V60 suggests that contralateral constrictor dose may depend partly on technique. Further studies are needed to see if the contralateral constrictor dose can be used to predict long-term dysphagia prospectively and in other patient populations.

Radiation therapy can cause long-term dysphagia that seriously affects quality of life for survivors of head and neck (H&N) cancer.^1-3 Numerous studies have linked pharyngeal constrictor dose to long-term dysphagia, but conclusions about the dose distribution that can be safely tolerated have been inconsistent. For example, a group from the Netherlands found that the mean dose to the superior pharyngeal constrictor muscle and the supraglottic larynx were each predictive of dysphagia.⁴ A subsequent Vanderbilt study refuted these findings, reporting that these structures were not predictive but that dose to the inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle was.⁵ Other studies have connected late dysphagia with dose to the middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle, total larynx, oral cavity, contralateral submandibular gland, contralateral parotid gland, or a combination of these structures.^6-14 NRG Oncology trials commonly evaluate dose to the “uninvolved pharynx,” which is the total pharyngeal constrictor muscle volume minus the planning target volume for the lowest dose target volume. NRG H&N trials 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 all use uninvolved pharynx mean dose  ≤ 45 Gy as a constraint to judge radiation plan quality.

Differences in methodology or patient population may explain the inconsistency of prior studies on dosimetric predictors of dysphagia, but it is possible that these studies did not evaluate the optimal metric for dysphagia. This study evaluates a novel organ at risk, the contralateral pharyngeal constrictor muscle, to determine whether dose to this structure is predictive of late swallowing function. The study also compares a constraint based on this structure to the NRG uninvolved pharynx constraint mentioned earlier.

Methods

This study is a retrospective review of patients treated at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. Patients were identified by searching the VA Cancer Registry for patients treated for H&N squamous cell carcinoma between September 1, 2016, and August 30, 2019. Eligible sites included cancers of the nasopharynx, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx and oral cavity, as well as H&N cancer of an unknown primary site. Only patients treated with primary radiation with concurrent systemic therapy were included. Patients were excluded if they had prior surgery or radiation to the H&N.

The pharyngeal constrictor muscles were contoured per the techniques described by Bhide and colleagues.¹¹ The contralateral constrictor was defined as the half of the constrictor volume contralateral to the primary site. For midline tumors, the side of the neck with a lower volume of lymph node metastases was judged to be the contralateral side.

Results

The VA Cancer Registry identified 113 patients treated for H&N cancer during the study period. Of these, 55 patients met the inclusion criteria. No patients were lost to follow-up. The median follow-up was 29 months. The median age was 67 years (range, 41-83) (Table 1).

All patients were treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Patients treated with a sequential boost had an initial dose of 54 Gy and/or 50 Gy, followed by a boost to a total of 70 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction. Patients treated with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique received 69.96 Gy in 33 fractions, with elective volumes treated to 54.45 Gy in 33 fractions. Both patients with nasopharyngeal cancer were treated with SIB plans and had an intermediate dose volume of 59.4 Gy.

Systemic therapy was weekly cisplatin in 41 patients (75%) and cetuximab in 14 (25%). Twenty percent of patients receiving cisplatin switched to an alternative agent during treatment, most commonly carboplatin.

Forty-nine patients (89%) had a G-tube placed before starting radiation. G-tubes were in place for an interval of 0 to 47 months (mean, 8.6); 12 (22%) had a G-tube > 12 months. After completion of radiation, 18 patients (33%) had an abnormal MBS. These were done 1 to 50 months (mean, 14.8) after completion of radiation. Abnormal MBS occurred ≥ 12 months after radiation in 9 patients, 5 of whom had their G-tube in place for less than a year.

Forty-six patients (84%) survived more than 1 year and could be evaluated for late swallowing function. One-year dysphagia was seen in 17 (37%) of these patients. Recurrence was seen in 20 patients (36%), with locoregional recurrence in 12 (60%) of these cases. Recurrence occurred at a range of 0 to 15 months (mean, 5.6). Neither recurrence (P = .69) nor locoregional recurrence (P = .11) was associated with increased 1-year dysphagia.

In patients who could be evaluated for long-term swallowing function, contralateral constrictor V60 ranged from 0% to 100% (median, 51%). V60 was < 40% in 18 patients (39%). With V60 < 40%, there was a 6% rate of 1-year dysphagia compared with 57% for V60 ≥ 40% (P < .001).

Patients with contralateral constrictor V60 < 40 and V60 ≥ 40 both had a mean age of 65 years. χ² analysis did not show a difference in T stage or systemic treatment but did show that patients with V60 < 40% were more likely to have N1 disease (P = .01), and less likely to have N2 disease (P = .01) compared with patients with V60 ≥ 40%. The difference in 1-year dysphagia between N0 to N1 patients (27%) and N2 to N3 patients (46%) was not statistically significant (P = .19).

In patients who could be evaluated for long-term swallowing function, the uninvolved pharynx volume median of the total constrictor volume was 32% (range, < 1%-62%). The uninvolved pharynx mean dose ranged from 28 to 68 Gy (median, 45). When the uninvolved pharynx mean dose was < 45 Gy, 1-year dysphagia was 22% compared with 52% with a dose ≥ 45 Gy (P = .03).

Discussion

This is the first study to link contralateral constrictor dose to long-term dysphagia in patients treated with radiation for H&N cancer. Editing the boost volume off air cavities was associated with lower contralateral constrictor V60 and with less long-term dysphagia. This may indicate that optimizing plans to meet a contralateral constrictor constraint can reduce rates of long-term dysphagia.

The most useful clinical predictors are those that identify a patient at low risk for toxicity. These constraints are useful because they reassure physicians that treatments will have a favorable risk/benefit ratio while identifying plans that may need modification before starting treatment.

The contralateral constrictor outperformed the uninvolved pharynx in identifying patients at low risk for long-term dysphagia. This difference could not be overcome by decreasing the threshold of the pharynx constraint, as 17% of patients with dysphagia had a mean dose of < 40 Gy to the uninvolved pharynx, which was not statistically significant.

An advantage of contralateral constrictor is that it is independent of planning target volume (PTV) size. The uninvolved pharynx structure depends on the PTV contour, so it may obscure a connection between PTV size and dysphagia.

In the context of a clinical trial, only measuring dose to the uninvolved pharynx may allow more plans to meet constraints, but even in NRG trials, physicians have some control over target volumes. For example, NRG HN009, a national trial for patients with H&N cancer, recommends editing the CTV_7000 (clinical target volume treated to 70 Gy) off air cavities but does not define how much the volume should be cropped or specify protocol violations if the volume is not cropped.¹⁵ Furthermore, constraints used in clinical trials are often adopted for use outside the trial, where physicians have extensive control over target volumes.

The broad range of uninvolved pharynx volume relative to total constrictor volume confounds predictions using this variable. For example, according to the NRG constraint, a patient with an uninvolved pharynx mean dose of 44 Gy will have a low risk of dysphagia even if this structure is only 1% of the total constrictor. The contralateral constrictor is always about 50% of the total constrictor volume, which means that predictions using this structure will not be confounded by the same variation in volume size.

Figure 2 shows a representative patient who met the NRG uninvolved pharynx constraint but developed long-term dysphagia.

Limitations

This study is limited by its single institution, retrospective design, small sample size, and by all patients being male. The high correlation between air cavity editing and the use of SIB makes it impossible to assess the impact of each technique individually. Patients with contralateral constrictor V60 < 40% were less likely to have N2 disease, but N2 to N3 disease did not predict higher 1-year dysphagia, so the difference in N-category cannot fully explain the difference in 1-year dysphagia. It is possible that unreported factors, such as CTV, may contribute significantly to swallowing function. Nevertheless, within the study population, contralateral constrictor dose was able to identify a group with a low rate of long-term dysphagia.

Conclusions

Contralateral constrictor dose is a promising predictor of late dysphagia for patients with H&N cancer treated with radiation with concurrent systemic therapy. Contralateral constrictor V60 < 40% was able to identify a group of patients with a low rate of 1-year dysphagia in this single-center retrospective study. The correlation between air cavity editing and contralateral constrictor V60 suggests that contralateral constrictor dose may depend partly on technique. Further studies are needed to see if the contralateral constrictor dose can be used to predict long-term dysphagia prospectively and in other patient populations.

Radiation therapy can cause long-term dysphagia that seriously affects quality of life for survivors of head and neck (H&N) cancer.^1-3 Numerous studies have linked pharyngeal constrictor dose to long-term dysphagia, but conclusions about the dose distribution that can be safely tolerated have been inconsistent. For example, a group from the Netherlands found that the mean dose to the superior pharyngeal constrictor muscle and the supraglottic larynx were each predictive of dysphagia.⁴ A subsequent Vanderbilt study refuted these findings, reporting that these structures were not predictive but that dose to the inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle was.⁵ Other studies have connected late dysphagia with dose to the middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle, total larynx, oral cavity, contralateral submandibular gland, contralateral parotid gland, or a combination of these structures.^6-14 NRG Oncology trials commonly evaluate dose to the “uninvolved pharynx,” which is the total pharyngeal constrictor muscle volume minus the planning target volume for the lowest dose target volume. NRG H&N trials 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 all use uninvolved pharynx mean dose  ≤ 45 Gy as a constraint to judge radiation plan quality.

Differences in methodology or patient population may explain the inconsistency of prior studies on dosimetric predictors of dysphagia, but it is possible that these studies did not evaluate the optimal metric for dysphagia. This study evaluates a novel organ at risk, the contralateral pharyngeal constrictor muscle, to determine whether dose to this structure is predictive of late swallowing function. The study also compares a constraint based on this structure to the NRG uninvolved pharynx constraint mentioned earlier.

Methods

This study is a retrospective review of patients treated at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. Patients were identified by searching the VA Cancer Registry for patients treated for H&N squamous cell carcinoma between September 1, 2016, and August 30, 2019. Eligible sites included cancers of the nasopharynx, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx and oral cavity, as well as H&N cancer of an unknown primary site. Only patients treated with primary radiation with concurrent systemic therapy were included. Patients were excluded if they had prior surgery or radiation to the H&N.

The pharyngeal constrictor muscles were contoured per the techniques described by Bhide and colleagues.¹¹ The contralateral constrictor was defined as the half of the constrictor volume contralateral to the primary site. For midline tumors, the side of the neck with a lower volume of lymph node metastases was judged to be the contralateral side.

Results

The VA Cancer Registry identified 113 patients treated for H&N cancer during the study period. Of these, 55 patients met the inclusion criteria. No patients were lost to follow-up. The median follow-up was 29 months. The median age was 67 years (range, 41-83) (Table 1).

All patients were treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Patients treated with a sequential boost had an initial dose of 54 Gy and/or 50 Gy, followed by a boost to a total of 70 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction. Patients treated with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique received 69.96 Gy in 33 fractions, with elective volumes treated to 54.45 Gy in 33 fractions. Both patients with nasopharyngeal cancer were treated with SIB plans and had an intermediate dose volume of 59.4 Gy.

Systemic therapy was weekly cisplatin in 41 patients (75%) and cetuximab in 14 (25%). Twenty percent of patients receiving cisplatin switched to an alternative agent during treatment, most commonly carboplatin.

Forty-nine patients (89%) had a G-tube placed before starting radiation. G-tubes were in place for an interval of 0 to 47 months (mean, 8.6); 12 (22%) had a G-tube > 12 months. After completion of radiation, 18 patients (33%) had an abnormal MBS. These were done 1 to 50 months (mean, 14.8) after completion of radiation. Abnormal MBS occurred ≥ 12 months after radiation in 9 patients, 5 of whom had their G-tube in place for less than a year.

Forty-six patients (84%) survived more than 1 year and could be evaluated for late swallowing function. One-year dysphagia was seen in 17 (37%) of these patients. Recurrence was seen in 20 patients (36%), with locoregional recurrence in 12 (60%) of these cases. Recurrence occurred at a range of 0 to 15 months (mean, 5.6). Neither recurrence (P = .69) nor locoregional recurrence (P = .11) was associated with increased 1-year dysphagia.

In patients who could be evaluated for long-term swallowing function, contralateral constrictor V60 ranged from 0% to 100% (median, 51%). V60 was < 40% in 18 patients (39%). With V60 < 40%, there was a 6% rate of 1-year dysphagia compared with 57% for V60 ≥ 40% (P < .001).

Patients with contralateral constrictor V60 < 40 and V60 ≥ 40 both had a mean age of 65 years. χ² analysis did not show a difference in T stage or systemic treatment but did show that patients with V60 < 40% were more likely to have N1 disease (P = .01), and less likely to have N2 disease (P = .01) compared with patients with V60 ≥ 40%. The difference in 1-year dysphagia between N0 to N1 patients (27%) and N2 to N3 patients (46%) was not statistically significant (P = .19).

In patients who could be evaluated for long-term swallowing function, the uninvolved pharynx volume median of the total constrictor volume was 32% (range, < 1%-62%). The uninvolved pharynx mean dose ranged from 28 to 68 Gy (median, 45). When the uninvolved pharynx mean dose was < 45 Gy, 1-year dysphagia was 22% compared with 52% with a dose ≥ 45 Gy (P = .03).

Discussion

This is the first study to link contralateral constrictor dose to long-term dysphagia in patients treated with radiation for H&N cancer. Editing the boost volume off air cavities was associated with lower contralateral constrictor V60 and with less long-term dysphagia. This may indicate that optimizing plans to meet a contralateral constrictor constraint can reduce rates of long-term dysphagia.

The most useful clinical predictors are those that identify a patient at low risk for toxicity. These constraints are useful because they reassure physicians that treatments will have a favorable risk/benefit ratio while identifying plans that may need modification before starting treatment.

The contralateral constrictor outperformed the uninvolved pharynx in identifying patients at low risk for long-term dysphagia. This difference could not be overcome by decreasing the threshold of the pharynx constraint, as 17% of patients with dysphagia had a mean dose of < 40 Gy to the uninvolved pharynx, which was not statistically significant.

An advantage of contralateral constrictor is that it is independent of planning target volume (PTV) size. The uninvolved pharynx structure depends on the PTV contour, so it may obscure a connection between PTV size and dysphagia.

In the context of a clinical trial, only measuring dose to the uninvolved pharynx may allow more plans to meet constraints, but even in NRG trials, physicians have some control over target volumes. For example, NRG HN009, a national trial for patients with H&N cancer, recommends editing the CTV_7000 (clinical target volume treated to 70 Gy) off air cavities but does not define how much the volume should be cropped or specify protocol violations if the volume is not cropped.¹⁵ Furthermore, constraints used in clinical trials are often adopted for use outside the trial, where physicians have extensive control over target volumes.

The broad range of uninvolved pharynx volume relative to total constrictor volume confounds predictions using this variable. For example, according to the NRG constraint, a patient with an uninvolved pharynx mean dose of 44 Gy will have a low risk of dysphagia even if this structure is only 1% of the total constrictor. The contralateral constrictor is always about 50% of the total constrictor volume, which means that predictions using this structure will not be confounded by the same variation in volume size.

Figure 2 shows a representative patient who met the NRG uninvolved pharynx constraint but developed long-term dysphagia.

Limitations

This study is limited by its single institution, retrospective design, small sample size, and by all patients being male. The high correlation between air cavity editing and the use of SIB makes it impossible to assess the impact of each technique individually. Patients with contralateral constrictor V60 < 40% were less likely to have N2 disease, but N2 to N3 disease did not predict higher 1-year dysphagia, so the difference in N-category cannot fully explain the difference in 1-year dysphagia. It is possible that unreported factors, such as CTV, may contribute significantly to swallowing function. Nevertheless, within the study population, contralateral constrictor dose was able to identify a group with a low rate of long-term dysphagia.

Conclusions

Contralateral constrictor dose is a promising predictor of late dysphagia for patients with H&N cancer treated with radiation with concurrent systemic therapy. Contralateral constrictor V60 < 40% was able to identify a group of patients with a low rate of 1-year dysphagia in this single-center retrospective study. The correlation between air cavity editing and contralateral constrictor V60 suggests that contralateral constrictor dose may depend partly on technique. Further studies are needed to see if the contralateral constrictor dose can be used to predict long-term dysphagia prospectively and in other patient populations.

A healthier lifestyle mitigated the impact of genetic factors on the risk of thyroid cancer, in a study based on data from more than 260,000 individuals.

Thyroid cancer has increased globally in recent years and ranks 9th among 36 cancers worldwide, at a considerable cost to health care systems, wrote Xiuming Feng of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China, and colleagues.

SciePro/Science Source

Both genetic and lifestyle factors are related to thyroid cancer; previous research suggests a heritability of about 50%, but data on the impact of modifiable lifestyle factors on thyroid cancer are limited, the researchers said.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers used data from the UK Biobank and recruited adults aged 40-69 years during March 2006–October 2010. The final study population included 264,956 individuals of European descent. The median age of the participants was 57 years, and 52% were women.

Data on lifestyle behaviors were collected using interviews and questionnaires. The researchers constructed a total lifestyle score based on five variables: diet, physical activity, weight, smoking, and alcohol consumption. Each variable was assigned a score of 0 or 1, with 1 being favorable lifestyle behavior. Lifestyle was divided into three categories: unfavorable (scores 0-1), intermediate (score 2), and favorable (scores 3-5).

Each individual’s polygenic risk score (PRS) was categorized as low, intermediate, or high based on a meta–genome-wide association study of three cohorts.

The main outcome was the development of thyroid cancer.

The researchers identified 423 incident thyroid cancer cases over a median follow-up of 11.1 years.

Overall, higher PRSs were significantly associated with thyroid cancer (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-2.64; P < .00001) as was an unfavorable lifestyle score (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.50-2.49; P < .001 for trend).

An unfavorable lifestyle was significantly associated with thyroid cancer in the highest PRS group, and individuals with high PRS and unfavorable lifestyle had a nearly fivefold increased risk of thyroid cancer (HR, 4.89; 95% CI, 3.03-7.91; P < .001). By extension, “Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the incidence of thyroid cancer in individuals with a higher PRS,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the availability of only baseline lifestyle data, and lack of data on iodine intake, radiation exposure, experience, and family history, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the potential lack of generalizability to populations other than the individuals of European descent in the current study, they said.

However, the study is the first known to address the association among lifestyle, genetic factors, and risk of thyroid cancer, and was strengthened by the large study population, and the results suggest that lifestyle interventions may help reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with a genetic predisposition, they concluded.

Healthy living can make a difference

The incidence of thyroid cancer has increased annually, and exploring the possible risk factors could prevent the occurrence of thyroid cancer, corresponding author Xiaobo Yang, PhD, said in an interview.

Previous studies have reported that thyroid cancer is related to genetics and lifestyle, said Dr. Yang. “However, whether healthy lifestyle was associated with thyroid cancer risk and could attenuate the impact of genetic variants on thyroid cancer remains equivocal; therefore, it is crucial to determine the associations between genetic and lifestyle with thyroid cancer,” he said.

“To our surprise, we found that adherence to healthier lifestyle also could reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with high genetic predispositions,” said Dr. Yang. “The findings highlight the potential role of lifestyle interventions on thyroid cancer, especially in those with high genetic risk, because the heritability of thyroid cancer was very high, approximately 50%,” he said. “More attention should be paid to the role of healthier lifestyle in the prevention of cancer,” he added.

“Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the risk of thyroid cancer, which is the important message for clinicians,” said Dr. Yang. “It is not too soon to comment on implications for clinical practice, because many studies have maintained the consistent comment that healthier lifestyle could prevent the occurrence of cancer,” he said.

The relationship between sex-specific lifestyle factors such as smoking and alcohol use and thyroid cancer remains uncertain, and more research is needed to validate these associations, Dr. Yang said. More research also is needed to confirm the complex mechanism between lifestyle and genetics in thyroid cancer, he added.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A healthier lifestyle mitigated the impact of genetic factors on the risk of thyroid cancer, in a study based on data from more than 260,000 individuals.

Thyroid cancer has increased globally in recent years and ranks 9th among 36 cancers worldwide, at a considerable cost to health care systems, wrote Xiuming Feng of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China, and colleagues.

SciePro/Science Source

Both genetic and lifestyle factors are related to thyroid cancer; previous research suggests a heritability of about 50%, but data on the impact of modifiable lifestyle factors on thyroid cancer are limited, the researchers said.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers used data from the UK Biobank and recruited adults aged 40-69 years during March 2006–October 2010. The final study population included 264,956 individuals of European descent. The median age of the participants was 57 years, and 52% were women.

Data on lifestyle behaviors were collected using interviews and questionnaires. The researchers constructed a total lifestyle score based on five variables: diet, physical activity, weight, smoking, and alcohol consumption. Each variable was assigned a score of 0 or 1, with 1 being favorable lifestyle behavior. Lifestyle was divided into three categories: unfavorable (scores 0-1), intermediate (score 2), and favorable (scores 3-5).

Each individual’s polygenic risk score (PRS) was categorized as low, intermediate, or high based on a meta–genome-wide association study of three cohorts.

The main outcome was the development of thyroid cancer.

The researchers identified 423 incident thyroid cancer cases over a median follow-up of 11.1 years.

Overall, higher PRSs were significantly associated with thyroid cancer (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-2.64; P < .00001) as was an unfavorable lifestyle score (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.50-2.49; P < .001 for trend).

An unfavorable lifestyle was significantly associated with thyroid cancer in the highest PRS group, and individuals with high PRS and unfavorable lifestyle had a nearly fivefold increased risk of thyroid cancer (HR, 4.89; 95% CI, 3.03-7.91; P < .001). By extension, “Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the incidence of thyroid cancer in individuals with a higher PRS,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the availability of only baseline lifestyle data, and lack of data on iodine intake, radiation exposure, experience, and family history, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the potential lack of generalizability to populations other than the individuals of European descent in the current study, they said.

However, the study is the first known to address the association among lifestyle, genetic factors, and risk of thyroid cancer, and was strengthened by the large study population, and the results suggest that lifestyle interventions may help reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with a genetic predisposition, they concluded.

Healthy living can make a difference

The incidence of thyroid cancer has increased annually, and exploring the possible risk factors could prevent the occurrence of thyroid cancer, corresponding author Xiaobo Yang, PhD, said in an interview.

Previous studies have reported that thyroid cancer is related to genetics and lifestyle, said Dr. Yang. “However, whether healthy lifestyle was associated with thyroid cancer risk and could attenuate the impact of genetic variants on thyroid cancer remains equivocal; therefore, it is crucial to determine the associations between genetic and lifestyle with thyroid cancer,” he said.

“To our surprise, we found that adherence to healthier lifestyle also could reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with high genetic predispositions,” said Dr. Yang. “The findings highlight the potential role of lifestyle interventions on thyroid cancer, especially in those with high genetic risk, because the heritability of thyroid cancer was very high, approximately 50%,” he said. “More attention should be paid to the role of healthier lifestyle in the prevention of cancer,” he added.

“Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the risk of thyroid cancer, which is the important message for clinicians,” said Dr. Yang. “It is not too soon to comment on implications for clinical practice, because many studies have maintained the consistent comment that healthier lifestyle could prevent the occurrence of cancer,” he said.

The relationship between sex-specific lifestyle factors such as smoking and alcohol use and thyroid cancer remains uncertain, and more research is needed to validate these associations, Dr. Yang said. More research also is needed to confirm the complex mechanism between lifestyle and genetics in thyroid cancer, he added.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A healthier lifestyle mitigated the impact of genetic factors on the risk of thyroid cancer, in a study based on data from more than 260,000 individuals.

Thyroid cancer has increased globally in recent years and ranks 9th among 36 cancers worldwide, at a considerable cost to health care systems, wrote Xiuming Feng of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China, and colleagues.

SciePro/Science Source

Both genetic and lifestyle factors are related to thyroid cancer; previous research suggests a heritability of about 50%, but data on the impact of modifiable lifestyle factors on thyroid cancer are limited, the researchers said.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers used data from the UK Biobank and recruited adults aged 40-69 years during March 2006–October 2010. The final study population included 264,956 individuals of European descent. The median age of the participants was 57 years, and 52% were women.

Data on lifestyle behaviors were collected using interviews and questionnaires. The researchers constructed a total lifestyle score based on five variables: diet, physical activity, weight, smoking, and alcohol consumption. Each variable was assigned a score of 0 or 1, with 1 being favorable lifestyle behavior. Lifestyle was divided into three categories: unfavorable (scores 0-1), intermediate (score 2), and favorable (scores 3-5).

Each individual’s polygenic risk score (PRS) was categorized as low, intermediate, or high based on a meta–genome-wide association study of three cohorts.

The main outcome was the development of thyroid cancer.

The researchers identified 423 incident thyroid cancer cases over a median follow-up of 11.1 years.

Overall, higher PRSs were significantly associated with thyroid cancer (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-2.64; P < .00001) as was an unfavorable lifestyle score (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.50-2.49; P < .001 for trend).

An unfavorable lifestyle was significantly associated with thyroid cancer in the highest PRS group, and individuals with high PRS and unfavorable lifestyle had a nearly fivefold increased risk of thyroid cancer (HR, 4.89; 95% CI, 3.03-7.91; P < .001). By extension, “Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the incidence of thyroid cancer in individuals with a higher PRS,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the availability of only baseline lifestyle data, and lack of data on iodine intake, radiation exposure, experience, and family history, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the potential lack of generalizability to populations other than the individuals of European descent in the current study, they said.

However, the study is the first known to address the association among lifestyle, genetic factors, and risk of thyroid cancer, and was strengthened by the large study population, and the results suggest that lifestyle interventions may help reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with a genetic predisposition, they concluded.

Healthy living can make a difference

The incidence of thyroid cancer has increased annually, and exploring the possible risk factors could prevent the occurrence of thyroid cancer, corresponding author Xiaobo Yang, PhD, said in an interview.

Previous studies have reported that thyroid cancer is related to genetics and lifestyle, said Dr. Yang. “However, whether healthy lifestyle was associated with thyroid cancer risk and could attenuate the impact of genetic variants on thyroid cancer remains equivocal; therefore, it is crucial to determine the associations between genetic and lifestyle with thyroid cancer,” he said.

“To our surprise, we found that adherence to healthier lifestyle also could reduce the risk of thyroid cancer in those with high genetic predispositions,” said Dr. Yang. “The findings highlight the potential role of lifestyle interventions on thyroid cancer, especially in those with high genetic risk, because the heritability of thyroid cancer was very high, approximately 50%,” he said. “More attention should be paid to the role of healthier lifestyle in the prevention of cancer,” he added.

“Adherence to a healthier lifestyle could decrease the risk of thyroid cancer, which is the important message for clinicians,” said Dr. Yang. “It is not too soon to comment on implications for clinical practice, because many studies have maintained the consistent comment that healthier lifestyle could prevent the occurrence of cancer,” he said.

The relationship between sex-specific lifestyle factors such as smoking and alcohol use and thyroid cancer remains uncertain, and more research is needed to validate these associations, Dr. Yang said. More research also is needed to confirm the complex mechanism between lifestyle and genetics in thyroid cancer, he added.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A new generation of treatments appears to have caused U.S. melanoma mortality rates to plunge between 2013 and 2017 for the first time in 4 decades, a new study finds, although the dip appeared to stabilize over the next 2 years.

“This data is very encouraging and represents the real-world effectiveness of these newer therapies, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies,” hematologist/oncologist Navkirat Kahlon, MD, MPH, of Seacoast Cancer Center and Massachusetts General Brigham Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, Dover, N.H., one of the study authors, said in an interview. In clinical trials, these new treatments “have been very effective ... so the timing as well as magnitude of drop seen in melanoma-specific population mortality was not at all surprising. But it’s still very exciting.”

The report, published in JAMA Network Open, tracked mortality rates for the deadliest form of skin cancer from 1975 to 2019. The researchers launched the study to better understand outcomes in cutaneous melanoma following the rise of new therapies that now provide options in addition to chemotherapy. “With the use of novel therapies, the survival of these patients has increased from a few weeks or months to many years in clinical trials,” Dr. Kahlon said. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world U.S. population is deriving the same benefit.”

New drugs introduced in recent years include immunotherapy agents such as ipilimumab and targeted therapies such as vemurafenib.

The researchers analyzed age-adjusted melanoma outcome data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. In 1975, the long-term melanoma mortality rate for melanoma was 2.07 per 100,000 people (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-2.13). It rose to 2.65 (95% CI, 2.58-2.65) in 1988 and 2.67 (95% CI, 2.61-2.72) in 2013, then fell to 2.09 (95% CI, 2.05-2.14) in 2017 and 2.01 (95% CI, 1.97-2.06) in 2019.

Per the analysis, the rate grew at an annual percentage change (APC) of 1.65% (95% CI, 1.30%-2.00%, P < .001) from 1975 to 1988 and remained stable from 1988 to 2013 (P = .85). Then it fell by an APC of 6.28% (95% CI, –8.52% to –3.97%, P < .001) from 2013 to 2017. There was no statistically significant difference between 2017 and 2019, although “the trend was downward,” the authors noted.

“Our study didn’t study the parameters that can answer the question about how many more years of life patients are getting or how many lives aren’t lost,” Dr. Kahlon said in the interview. “But looking at other studies and clinical trial data, the prognosis of these patients with a historical median overall survival of a few weeks to months has improved to many months to years.”

But why do melanoma mortality rates remain roughly about the same as they were in 1975? “The incidence of melanoma has continued to rise,” she said. “Also, over time, we have become better at collecting more accurate information, so the [rate] in 1975 could potentially be an underestimated rate.”

In an interview, dermatologist Adewole “Ade” Adamson, MD, MPP, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted that a 2020 study examined melanoma death rates in Whites – who are most affected by melanoma – and found similar trends from 2013 to 2016. “Nothing about these [new] findings surprises me as they have been shown before. However, these confirmatory findings are reassuring because they show the powerful effect of novel treatments at a population level.”

A new generation of treatments appears to have caused U.S. melanoma mortality rates to plunge between 2013 and 2017 for the first time in 4 decades, a new study finds, although the dip appeared to stabilize over the next 2 years.

“This data is very encouraging and represents the real-world effectiveness of these newer therapies, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies,” hematologist/oncologist Navkirat Kahlon, MD, MPH, of Seacoast Cancer Center and Massachusetts General Brigham Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, Dover, N.H., one of the study authors, said in an interview. In clinical trials, these new treatments “have been very effective ... so the timing as well as magnitude of drop seen in melanoma-specific population mortality was not at all surprising. But it’s still very exciting.”

The report, published in JAMA Network Open, tracked mortality rates for the deadliest form of skin cancer from 1975 to 2019. The researchers launched the study to better understand outcomes in cutaneous melanoma following the rise of new therapies that now provide options in addition to chemotherapy. “With the use of novel therapies, the survival of these patients has increased from a few weeks or months to many years in clinical trials,” Dr. Kahlon said. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world U.S. population is deriving the same benefit.”

New drugs introduced in recent years include immunotherapy agents such as ipilimumab and targeted therapies such as vemurafenib.

The researchers analyzed age-adjusted melanoma outcome data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. In 1975, the long-term melanoma mortality rate for melanoma was 2.07 per 100,000 people (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-2.13). It rose to 2.65 (95% CI, 2.58-2.65) in 1988 and 2.67 (95% CI, 2.61-2.72) in 2013, then fell to 2.09 (95% CI, 2.05-2.14) in 2017 and 2.01 (95% CI, 1.97-2.06) in 2019.

Per the analysis, the rate grew at an annual percentage change (APC) of 1.65% (95% CI, 1.30%-2.00%, P < .001) from 1975 to 1988 and remained stable from 1988 to 2013 (P = .85). Then it fell by an APC of 6.28% (95% CI, –8.52% to –3.97%, P < .001) from 2013 to 2017. There was no statistically significant difference between 2017 and 2019, although “the trend was downward,” the authors noted.

“Our study didn’t study the parameters that can answer the question about how many more years of life patients are getting or how many lives aren’t lost,” Dr. Kahlon said in the interview. “But looking at other studies and clinical trial data, the prognosis of these patients with a historical median overall survival of a few weeks to months has improved to many months to years.”

But why do melanoma mortality rates remain roughly about the same as they were in 1975? “The incidence of melanoma has continued to rise,” she said. “Also, over time, we have become better at collecting more accurate information, so the [rate] in 1975 could potentially be an underestimated rate.”

In an interview, dermatologist Adewole “Ade” Adamson, MD, MPP, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted that a 2020 study examined melanoma death rates in Whites – who are most affected by melanoma – and found similar trends from 2013 to 2016. “Nothing about these [new] findings surprises me as they have been shown before. However, these confirmatory findings are reassuring because they show the powerful effect of novel treatments at a population level.”

A new generation of treatments appears to have caused U.S. melanoma mortality rates to plunge between 2013 and 2017 for the first time in 4 decades, a new study finds, although the dip appeared to stabilize over the next 2 years.

“This data is very encouraging and represents the real-world effectiveness of these newer therapies, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies,” hematologist/oncologist Navkirat Kahlon, MD, MPH, of Seacoast Cancer Center and Massachusetts General Brigham Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, Dover, N.H., one of the study authors, said in an interview. In clinical trials, these new treatments “have been very effective ... so the timing as well as magnitude of drop seen in melanoma-specific population mortality was not at all surprising. But it’s still very exciting.”

The report, published in JAMA Network Open, tracked mortality rates for the deadliest form of skin cancer from 1975 to 2019. The researchers launched the study to better understand outcomes in cutaneous melanoma following the rise of new therapies that now provide options in addition to chemotherapy. “With the use of novel therapies, the survival of these patients has increased from a few weeks or months to many years in clinical trials,” Dr. Kahlon said. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world U.S. population is deriving the same benefit.”

New drugs introduced in recent years include immunotherapy agents such as ipilimumab and targeted therapies such as vemurafenib.

The researchers analyzed age-adjusted melanoma outcome data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. In 1975, the long-term melanoma mortality rate for melanoma was 2.07 per 100,000 people (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-2.13). It rose to 2.65 (95% CI, 2.58-2.65) in 1988 and 2.67 (95% CI, 2.61-2.72) in 2013, then fell to 2.09 (95% CI, 2.05-2.14) in 2017 and 2.01 (95% CI, 1.97-2.06) in 2019.

Per the analysis, the rate grew at an annual percentage change (APC) of 1.65% (95% CI, 1.30%-2.00%, P < .001) from 1975 to 1988 and remained stable from 1988 to 2013 (P = .85). Then it fell by an APC of 6.28% (95% CI, –8.52% to –3.97%, P < .001) from 2013 to 2017. There was no statistically significant difference between 2017 and 2019, although “the trend was downward,” the authors noted.

“Our study didn’t study the parameters that can answer the question about how many more years of life patients are getting or how many lives aren’t lost,” Dr. Kahlon said in the interview. “But looking at other studies and clinical trial data, the prognosis of these patients with a historical median overall survival of a few weeks to months has improved to many months to years.”

But why do melanoma mortality rates remain roughly about the same as they were in 1975? “The incidence of melanoma has continued to rise,” she said. “Also, over time, we have become better at collecting more accurate information, so the [rate] in 1975 could potentially be an underestimated rate.”

In an interview, dermatologist Adewole “Ade” Adamson, MD, MPP, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted that a 2020 study examined melanoma death rates in Whites – who are most affected by melanoma – and found similar trends from 2013 to 2016. “Nothing about these [new] findings surprises me as they have been shown before. However, these confirmatory findings are reassuring because they show the powerful effect of novel treatments at a population level.”

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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