AVAHO

As a class of drugs, proteasome inhibitors are known to rarely cause drug-induced thrombotic microangiopathy (DITMA). In particular, carfilzomib is a second-generation, irreversible proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of relapsed, refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in combination with other therapeutic agents.¹ Although generally well tolerated, carfilzomib has been associated with serious adverse events such as cardiovascular toxicity and DITMA.^2-4 Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is a life-threatening disorder characterized by thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, and end-organ damage.⁵ Its occurrence secondary to carfilzomib has been reported only rarely in clinical trials of MM, and the most effective management of the disorder as well as the concurrent risk factors that contribute to its development remain incompletely understood.^6,7 As a result, given both the expanding use of carfilzomib in practice and the morbidity of TMA, descriptions of carfilzomib-induced TMA from the real-world setting continue to provide important contributions to our understanding of the disorder.

At our US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center, 2 patients developed severe carfilzomib-induced TMA within days of one another. The presentation of simultaneous cases was highly unexpected and offered the unique opportunity to compare clinical features in real time. Here, we describe our 2 cases in detail, review their presentations and management in the context of the prior literature, and discuss potential insights gained into the disease.

Case Presentation

Case 1

A 78-year-old male patient was diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in 2012 that progressed to Revised International Staging System stage II IgG-κ MM in 2016 due to worsening anemia with a hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL (Table 1). He was treated initially with 8 cycles of first-line bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, to which he achieved a partial response with > 50% reduction in serum M-protein. He then received 3 cycles of maintenance bortezomib until relapse, at which time he was switched to second-line therapy consisting of carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 56 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 56 mg/m² on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 for subsequent cycles plus dexamethasone 20 mg twice weekly every 28 days.

After the patient received cycle 3, day 1 of carfilzomib, he developed subjective fevers, chills, and diarrhea. He missed his day 2 infusion and instead presented to the VA emergency department, where his vital signs were stable and laboratory tests were notable for the following levels: leukocytosis of20.3 K/µL (91.7% neutrophils), hemoglobin 12.4 g/dL (prior 13.5 g/dL), platelet count 171 K/µL, and creatinine 1.39 mg/dL (prior 1.13 g/dL). A chest X-ray demonstrated diffuse bilateral opacities concerning for edema vs infection, and he was started empirically on vancomycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and azithromycin. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, aspirin, finasteride, oxybutynin, ranitidine, omega-3 fatty acids, fish oil, vitamin D, and senna, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count dropped to 81 K/µL and creatinine level rose to 1.78 mg/dL. He developed dark urine (urinalysis [UA] 3+ blood, 6-11 red blood cells per high power field [RBC/HPF]) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) > 1,200 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), haptoglobin < 30 mg/dL (reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), total bilirubin 3.2 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; indirect bilirubin, 2.6 mg/dL), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy (Figure 1).

Case 2

A 59-year-old male patient, diagnosed in 2013 with ISS stage I IgG-κ MM after presenting with compression fractures, completed 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone before undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with complete response (Table 1). He subsequently received single-agent maintenance bortezomib until relapse nearly 2 years later, at which time he started second-line carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycles 2 to 8, lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1 to 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly every 28 days. Serum free light chain levels normalized after 9 cycles, and he subsequently began maintenance carfilzomib 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 15 plus lenalidomide 10 mg on days 1 to 21 every 28 days.

On the morning before admission, the patient received C6D17 of maintenance carfilzomib, which had been delayed from day 15 because of the holiday. Later that evening, he developed nausea, vomiting, and fever of 101.3 °F. He presented to the VA emergency department and was tachycardic (108 beats per minute) and hypotensive (86/55 mm Hg). Laboratory tests were notable for hemoglobin level 9.9 g/dL (prior 11.6 g/dL), platelet count 270 K/µL, and creatinine level 1.86 mg/dL (prior 1.12 mg/dL). A respiratory viral panel was positive for influenza A, and antimicrobial agents were eventually broadened to piperacillin-tazobactam, azithromycin, and oseltamivir. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, zoledronic acid, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, aspirin, amlodipine, atorvastatin, omeprazole, zolpidem, calcium, vitamin D, loratadine, ascorbic acid, and prochlorperazine, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count declined from 211 to 57 K/µL. He developed tea-colored urine (UA 2+ blood, 0-2 RBC/HPF) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including LDH 910 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), total bilirubin 3.3 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; no direct or indirect available), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy. Although haptoglobin level was normal at this time (206 mg/dL; reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), it decreased to 42 mg/dL by the following day. Additional workup included a negative direct Coombs and a DIC panel showing elevated fibrinogen (596 mg/dL; reference range, 200-400 mg/dL) and mildly elevated INR (1.16). Blood cultures remained negative, and a 22-pathogen GI PCR panel identified no viral or bacterial pathogens, including E coli O157:H7. C3 (114 mg/dL; reference range, 90-180 mg/dL) and C4 (40 mg/dL; reference range, 16-47 mg/dL) complement levels were both normal.

Based on these findings, empiric treatment was started with plasma exchange and pulse-dosed steroids. The patient received 3 cycles of plasma exchange until the results of the ADAMTS13 activity ruled out TTP (63% enzyme activity). Over the next 6 days, his platelet count reached a nadir of 6 K/µL and creatinine level peaked at 10.36 mg/dL, necessitating the initiation of hemodialysis. Given severe renal insufficiency, a diagnosis of atypical HUS was again considered, and eculizumab 900 mg was administered on days 9 and 16 with stabilization of renal function. By the time of discharge on day 17, the patient’s creatinine level had decreased to 4.17 mg/dL and platelet count was 164 K/µL. Creatinine level normalized to 1.02 mg/dL by day 72.

Outpatient genetic testing through the BloodCenter of Wisconsin Diagnostic Laboratories was negative for gene mutations associated with atypical HUS. Approximately 1 month after discharge, the patient resumed maintenance lenalidomide alone without reinitiation of proteasome inhibitor therapy.

Discussion

In this case series, we describe the uncommon drug-related adverse event of TMA occurring in 2 patients with MM after receiving carfilzomib. Although the incidence of TMA disorders is low, reaching up to 2.8% in patients receiving carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in the phase 2 CARDAMON trial, our experience suggests that a high index of suspicion for carfilzomib-induced TMA is warranted in the real-world setting.⁸ TMA syndromes, including TTP, HUS, and DITMA, are characterized by microvascular endothelial injury and thrombosis leading to thrombocytopenia and microangiopathic hemolytic anemia.^5,9 Several drug culprits of DITMA are recognized, including quinine, gemcitabine, tacrolimus, and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib).^10-12 In a real-world series of patients receiving proteasome inhibitor therapy, either carfilzomib (n=8) or bortezomib (n=3), common clinical features of DITMA included thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and renal insufficiency with or without a need for hemodialysis.² Although DITMA has been described primarily as an early event, its occurrence after 12 months of proteasome inhibitor therapy has also been reported, both in this series and elsewhere, thereby suggesting an ongoing risk for DITMA throughout the duration of carfilzomib treatment.^2,13

The diagnosis of DITMA can be challenging given its nonspecific symptoms that overlap with other TMA syndromes. Previous studies have proposed that for a drug to be associated with DITMA, there should be: (1) evidence of clinical and/or pathologic findings of TMA; (2) exclusion of alternative causes of TMA; (3) no other new drug exposures other than the suspected culprit medication; and (4) a lack of recurrence of TMA in absence of the drug.¹⁰ In the case of patients with MM, other causes of TMA have also been described, including the underlying plasma cell disorder itself and stem cell transplantation.¹⁴ In the 2 cases we have described, these alternative causes were considered unlikely given that only 1 patient underwent transplantation remotely and neither had a previous history of TMA secondary to their disease. With respect to other TMA syndromes, ADAMTS13 levels > 10% and negative stool studies for E coli O157:H7 suggested against TTP or typical HUS, respectively. No other drug culprits were identified, and the close timing between the receipt of carfilzomib and symptom onset supported a causal relationship.

Because specific therapies are lacking, management of DITMA has traditionally included drug discontinuation and supportive care for end-organ injury.⁵ The terminal complement inhibitor, eculizumab, improves hematologic abnormalities and renal function in patients with atypical HUS but its use for treating patients with DITMA is not standard.¹⁵ Therefore, the decision to administer eculizumab to our 2 patients was driven by their severe renal insufficiency without improvement after plasma exchange, which suggested a phenotype similar to atypical HUS. After administration of eculizumab, renal function stabilized and then gradually improved over weeks to months, a time course similar to that described in cases of patients with DITMA secondary to other anticancer therapies treated with eculizumab.¹⁶ Although these results suggest a potential role for eculizumab in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA, distinguishing the benefit of eculizumab over drug discontinuation alone remains challenging, and well-designed prospective investigations are needed.

Conclusions

DITMA is a known risk of proteasome inhibitors and is listed as a safety warning in the prescribing information for bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib.¹² Given the overall rarity of this adverse event, the simultaneous presentation of our 2 cases was unexpected and underscores the need for heightened awareness in clinical practice. In addition, while no underlying complement mutations were identified, eculizumab was used in both cases to successfully stabilize renal function. Further research investigating the efficacy of eculizumab and the role of complement activation in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA will be valuable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the patients whose histories are reported in this manuscript as well as the physicians and staff who provided care during the hospitalizations and beyond. We also thank Oscar Silva, MD, PhD, for his assistance in reviewing and formatting the peripheral blood smear images.

As a class of drugs, proteasome inhibitors are known to rarely cause drug-induced thrombotic microangiopathy (DITMA). In particular, carfilzomib is a second-generation, irreversible proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of relapsed, refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in combination with other therapeutic agents.¹ Although generally well tolerated, carfilzomib has been associated with serious adverse events such as cardiovascular toxicity and DITMA.^2-4 Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is a life-threatening disorder characterized by thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, and end-organ damage.⁵ Its occurrence secondary to carfilzomib has been reported only rarely in clinical trials of MM, and the most effective management of the disorder as well as the concurrent risk factors that contribute to its development remain incompletely understood.^6,7 As a result, given both the expanding use of carfilzomib in practice and the morbidity of TMA, descriptions of carfilzomib-induced TMA from the real-world setting continue to provide important contributions to our understanding of the disorder.

At our US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center, 2 patients developed severe carfilzomib-induced TMA within days of one another. The presentation of simultaneous cases was highly unexpected and offered the unique opportunity to compare clinical features in real time. Here, we describe our 2 cases in detail, review their presentations and management in the context of the prior literature, and discuss potential insights gained into the disease.

Case Presentation

Case 1

A 78-year-old male patient was diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in 2012 that progressed to Revised International Staging System stage II IgG-κ MM in 2016 due to worsening anemia with a hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL (Table 1). He was treated initially with 8 cycles of first-line bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, to which he achieved a partial response with > 50% reduction in serum M-protein. He then received 3 cycles of maintenance bortezomib until relapse, at which time he was switched to second-line therapy consisting of carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 56 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 56 mg/m² on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 for subsequent cycles plus dexamethasone 20 mg twice weekly every 28 days.

After the patient received cycle 3, day 1 of carfilzomib, he developed subjective fevers, chills, and diarrhea. He missed his day 2 infusion and instead presented to the VA emergency department, where his vital signs were stable and laboratory tests were notable for the following levels: leukocytosis of20.3 K/µL (91.7% neutrophils), hemoglobin 12.4 g/dL (prior 13.5 g/dL), platelet count 171 K/µL, and creatinine 1.39 mg/dL (prior 1.13 g/dL). A chest X-ray demonstrated diffuse bilateral opacities concerning for edema vs infection, and he was started empirically on vancomycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and azithromycin. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, aspirin, finasteride, oxybutynin, ranitidine, omega-3 fatty acids, fish oil, vitamin D, and senna, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count dropped to 81 K/µL and creatinine level rose to 1.78 mg/dL. He developed dark urine (urinalysis [UA] 3+ blood, 6-11 red blood cells per high power field [RBC/HPF]) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) > 1,200 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), haptoglobin < 30 mg/dL (reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), total bilirubin 3.2 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; indirect bilirubin, 2.6 mg/dL), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy (Figure 1).

Case 2

A 59-year-old male patient, diagnosed in 2013 with ISS stage I IgG-κ MM after presenting with compression fractures, completed 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone before undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with complete response (Table 1). He subsequently received single-agent maintenance bortezomib until relapse nearly 2 years later, at which time he started second-line carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycles 2 to 8, lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1 to 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly every 28 days. Serum free light chain levels normalized after 9 cycles, and he subsequently began maintenance carfilzomib 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 15 plus lenalidomide 10 mg on days 1 to 21 every 28 days.

On the morning before admission, the patient received C6D17 of maintenance carfilzomib, which had been delayed from day 15 because of the holiday. Later that evening, he developed nausea, vomiting, and fever of 101.3 °F. He presented to the VA emergency department and was tachycardic (108 beats per minute) and hypotensive (86/55 mm Hg). Laboratory tests were notable for hemoglobin level 9.9 g/dL (prior 11.6 g/dL), platelet count 270 K/µL, and creatinine level 1.86 mg/dL (prior 1.12 mg/dL). A respiratory viral panel was positive for influenza A, and antimicrobial agents were eventually broadened to piperacillin-tazobactam, azithromycin, and oseltamivir. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, zoledronic acid, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, aspirin, amlodipine, atorvastatin, omeprazole, zolpidem, calcium, vitamin D, loratadine, ascorbic acid, and prochlorperazine, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count declined from 211 to 57 K/µL. He developed tea-colored urine (UA 2+ blood, 0-2 RBC/HPF) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including LDH 910 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), total bilirubin 3.3 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; no direct or indirect available), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy. Although haptoglobin level was normal at this time (206 mg/dL; reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), it decreased to 42 mg/dL by the following day. Additional workup included a negative direct Coombs and a DIC panel showing elevated fibrinogen (596 mg/dL; reference range, 200-400 mg/dL) and mildly elevated INR (1.16). Blood cultures remained negative, and a 22-pathogen GI PCR panel identified no viral or bacterial pathogens, including E coli O157:H7. C3 (114 mg/dL; reference range, 90-180 mg/dL) and C4 (40 mg/dL; reference range, 16-47 mg/dL) complement levels were both normal.

Based on these findings, empiric treatment was started with plasma exchange and pulse-dosed steroids. The patient received 3 cycles of plasma exchange until the results of the ADAMTS13 activity ruled out TTP (63% enzyme activity). Over the next 6 days, his platelet count reached a nadir of 6 K/µL and creatinine level peaked at 10.36 mg/dL, necessitating the initiation of hemodialysis. Given severe renal insufficiency, a diagnosis of atypical HUS was again considered, and eculizumab 900 mg was administered on days 9 and 16 with stabilization of renal function. By the time of discharge on day 17, the patient’s creatinine level had decreased to 4.17 mg/dL and platelet count was 164 K/µL. Creatinine level normalized to 1.02 mg/dL by day 72.

Outpatient genetic testing through the BloodCenter of Wisconsin Diagnostic Laboratories was negative for gene mutations associated with atypical HUS. Approximately 1 month after discharge, the patient resumed maintenance lenalidomide alone without reinitiation of proteasome inhibitor therapy.

Discussion

In this case series, we describe the uncommon drug-related adverse event of TMA occurring in 2 patients with MM after receiving carfilzomib. Although the incidence of TMA disorders is low, reaching up to 2.8% in patients receiving carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in the phase 2 CARDAMON trial, our experience suggests that a high index of suspicion for carfilzomib-induced TMA is warranted in the real-world setting.⁸ TMA syndromes, including TTP, HUS, and DITMA, are characterized by microvascular endothelial injury and thrombosis leading to thrombocytopenia and microangiopathic hemolytic anemia.^5,9 Several drug culprits of DITMA are recognized, including quinine, gemcitabine, tacrolimus, and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib).^10-12 In a real-world series of patients receiving proteasome inhibitor therapy, either carfilzomib (n=8) or bortezomib (n=3), common clinical features of DITMA included thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and renal insufficiency with or without a need for hemodialysis.² Although DITMA has been described primarily as an early event, its occurrence after 12 months of proteasome inhibitor therapy has also been reported, both in this series and elsewhere, thereby suggesting an ongoing risk for DITMA throughout the duration of carfilzomib treatment.^2,13

The diagnosis of DITMA can be challenging given its nonspecific symptoms that overlap with other TMA syndromes. Previous studies have proposed that for a drug to be associated with DITMA, there should be: (1) evidence of clinical and/or pathologic findings of TMA; (2) exclusion of alternative causes of TMA; (3) no other new drug exposures other than the suspected culprit medication; and (4) a lack of recurrence of TMA in absence of the drug.¹⁰ In the case of patients with MM, other causes of TMA have also been described, including the underlying plasma cell disorder itself and stem cell transplantation.¹⁴ In the 2 cases we have described, these alternative causes were considered unlikely given that only 1 patient underwent transplantation remotely and neither had a previous history of TMA secondary to their disease. With respect to other TMA syndromes, ADAMTS13 levels > 10% and negative stool studies for E coli O157:H7 suggested against TTP or typical HUS, respectively. No other drug culprits were identified, and the close timing between the receipt of carfilzomib and symptom onset supported a causal relationship.

Because specific therapies are lacking, management of DITMA has traditionally included drug discontinuation and supportive care for end-organ injury.⁵ The terminal complement inhibitor, eculizumab, improves hematologic abnormalities and renal function in patients with atypical HUS but its use for treating patients with DITMA is not standard.¹⁵ Therefore, the decision to administer eculizumab to our 2 patients was driven by their severe renal insufficiency without improvement after plasma exchange, which suggested a phenotype similar to atypical HUS. After administration of eculizumab, renal function stabilized and then gradually improved over weeks to months, a time course similar to that described in cases of patients with DITMA secondary to other anticancer therapies treated with eculizumab.¹⁶ Although these results suggest a potential role for eculizumab in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA, distinguishing the benefit of eculizumab over drug discontinuation alone remains challenging, and well-designed prospective investigations are needed.

Conclusions

DITMA is a known risk of proteasome inhibitors and is listed as a safety warning in the prescribing information for bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib.¹² Given the overall rarity of this adverse event, the simultaneous presentation of our 2 cases was unexpected and underscores the need for heightened awareness in clinical practice. In addition, while no underlying complement mutations were identified, eculizumab was used in both cases to successfully stabilize renal function. Further research investigating the efficacy of eculizumab and the role of complement activation in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA will be valuable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the patients whose histories are reported in this manuscript as well as the physicians and staff who provided care during the hospitalizations and beyond. We also thank Oscar Silva, MD, PhD, for his assistance in reviewing and formatting the peripheral blood smear images.

As a class of drugs, proteasome inhibitors are known to rarely cause drug-induced thrombotic microangiopathy (DITMA). In particular, carfilzomib is a second-generation, irreversible proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of relapsed, refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in combination with other therapeutic agents.¹ Although generally well tolerated, carfilzomib has been associated with serious adverse events such as cardiovascular toxicity and DITMA.^2-4 Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is a life-threatening disorder characterized by thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, and end-organ damage.⁵ Its occurrence secondary to carfilzomib has been reported only rarely in clinical trials of MM, and the most effective management of the disorder as well as the concurrent risk factors that contribute to its development remain incompletely understood.^6,7 As a result, given both the expanding use of carfilzomib in practice and the morbidity of TMA, descriptions of carfilzomib-induced TMA from the real-world setting continue to provide important contributions to our understanding of the disorder.

At our US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center, 2 patients developed severe carfilzomib-induced TMA within days of one another. The presentation of simultaneous cases was highly unexpected and offered the unique opportunity to compare clinical features in real time. Here, we describe our 2 cases in detail, review their presentations and management in the context of the prior literature, and discuss potential insights gained into the disease.

Case Presentation

Case 1

A 78-year-old male patient was diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in 2012 that progressed to Revised International Staging System stage II IgG-κ MM in 2016 due to worsening anemia with a hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL (Table 1). He was treated initially with 8 cycles of first-line bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, to which he achieved a partial response with > 50% reduction in serum M-protein. He then received 3 cycles of maintenance bortezomib until relapse, at which time he was switched to second-line therapy consisting of carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 56 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 56 mg/m² on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 for subsequent cycles plus dexamethasone 20 mg twice weekly every 28 days.

After the patient received cycle 3, day 1 of carfilzomib, he developed subjective fevers, chills, and diarrhea. He missed his day 2 infusion and instead presented to the VA emergency department, where his vital signs were stable and laboratory tests were notable for the following levels: leukocytosis of20.3 K/µL (91.7% neutrophils), hemoglobin 12.4 g/dL (prior 13.5 g/dL), platelet count 171 K/µL, and creatinine 1.39 mg/dL (prior 1.13 g/dL). A chest X-ray demonstrated diffuse bilateral opacities concerning for edema vs infection, and he was started empirically on vancomycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and azithromycin. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, aspirin, finasteride, oxybutynin, ranitidine, omega-3 fatty acids, fish oil, vitamin D, and senna, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count dropped to 81 K/µL and creatinine level rose to 1.78 mg/dL. He developed dark urine (urinalysis [UA] 3+ blood, 6-11 red blood cells per high power field [RBC/HPF]) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) > 1,200 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), haptoglobin < 30 mg/dL (reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), total bilirubin 3.2 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; indirect bilirubin, 2.6 mg/dL), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy (Figure 1).

Case 2

A 59-year-old male patient, diagnosed in 2013 with ISS stage I IgG-κ MM after presenting with compression fractures, completed 8 cycles of cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone before undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with complete response (Table 1). He subsequently received single-agent maintenance bortezomib until relapse nearly 2 years later, at which time he started second-line carfilzomib 20 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycle 1, followed by 27 mg/m² on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 for cycles 2 to 8, lenalidomide 25 mg on days 1 to 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly every 28 days. Serum free light chain levels normalized after 9 cycles, and he subsequently began maintenance carfilzomib 70 mg/m² on days 1 and 15 plus lenalidomide 10 mg on days 1 to 21 every 28 days.

On the morning before admission, the patient received C6D17 of maintenance carfilzomib, which had been delayed from day 15 because of the holiday. Later that evening, he developed nausea, vomiting, and fever of 101.3 °F. He presented to the VA emergency department and was tachycardic (108 beats per minute) and hypotensive (86/55 mm Hg). Laboratory tests were notable for hemoglobin level 9.9 g/dL (prior 11.6 g/dL), platelet count 270 K/µL, and creatinine level 1.86 mg/dL (prior 1.12 mg/dL). A respiratory viral panel was positive for influenza A, and antimicrobial agents were eventually broadened to piperacillin-tazobactam, azithromycin, and oseltamivir. His outpatient medications, which included acyclovir, zoledronic acid, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, aspirin, amlodipine, atorvastatin, omeprazole, zolpidem, calcium, vitamin D, loratadine, ascorbic acid, and prochlorperazine, were continued as indicated.

On hospital day 2, the patient’s platelet count declined from 211 to 57 K/µL. He developed tea-colored urine (UA 2+ blood, 0-2 RBC/HPF) and had laboratory tests suggestive of hemolysis, including LDH 910 IU/L (reference range, 60-250 IU/L), total bilirubin 3.3 mg/dL (reference range, 0.2-1.3 mg/dL; no direct or indirect available), and a peripheral blood smear demonstrating moderate microangiopathy. Although haptoglobin level was normal at this time (206 mg/dL; reference range, 44-215 mg/dL), it decreased to 42 mg/dL by the following day. Additional workup included a negative direct Coombs and a DIC panel showing elevated fibrinogen (596 mg/dL; reference range, 200-400 mg/dL) and mildly elevated INR (1.16). Blood cultures remained negative, and a 22-pathogen GI PCR panel identified no viral or bacterial pathogens, including E coli O157:H7. C3 (114 mg/dL; reference range, 90-180 mg/dL) and C4 (40 mg/dL; reference range, 16-47 mg/dL) complement levels were both normal.

Based on these findings, empiric treatment was started with plasma exchange and pulse-dosed steroids. The patient received 3 cycles of plasma exchange until the results of the ADAMTS13 activity ruled out TTP (63% enzyme activity). Over the next 6 days, his platelet count reached a nadir of 6 K/µL and creatinine level peaked at 10.36 mg/dL, necessitating the initiation of hemodialysis. Given severe renal insufficiency, a diagnosis of atypical HUS was again considered, and eculizumab 900 mg was administered on days 9 and 16 with stabilization of renal function. By the time of discharge on day 17, the patient’s creatinine level had decreased to 4.17 mg/dL and platelet count was 164 K/µL. Creatinine level normalized to 1.02 mg/dL by day 72.

Outpatient genetic testing through the BloodCenter of Wisconsin Diagnostic Laboratories was negative for gene mutations associated with atypical HUS. Approximately 1 month after discharge, the patient resumed maintenance lenalidomide alone without reinitiation of proteasome inhibitor therapy.

Discussion

In this case series, we describe the uncommon drug-related adverse event of TMA occurring in 2 patients with MM after receiving carfilzomib. Although the incidence of TMA disorders is low, reaching up to 2.8% in patients receiving carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in the phase 2 CARDAMON trial, our experience suggests that a high index of suspicion for carfilzomib-induced TMA is warranted in the real-world setting.⁸ TMA syndromes, including TTP, HUS, and DITMA, are characterized by microvascular endothelial injury and thrombosis leading to thrombocytopenia and microangiopathic hemolytic anemia.^5,9 Several drug culprits of DITMA are recognized, including quinine, gemcitabine, tacrolimus, and proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib).^10-12 In a real-world series of patients receiving proteasome inhibitor therapy, either carfilzomib (n=8) or bortezomib (n=3), common clinical features of DITMA included thrombocytopenia, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and renal insufficiency with or without a need for hemodialysis.² Although DITMA has been described primarily as an early event, its occurrence after 12 months of proteasome inhibitor therapy has also been reported, both in this series and elsewhere, thereby suggesting an ongoing risk for DITMA throughout the duration of carfilzomib treatment.^2,13

The diagnosis of DITMA can be challenging given its nonspecific symptoms that overlap with other TMA syndromes. Previous studies have proposed that for a drug to be associated with DITMA, there should be: (1) evidence of clinical and/or pathologic findings of TMA; (2) exclusion of alternative causes of TMA; (3) no other new drug exposures other than the suspected culprit medication; and (4) a lack of recurrence of TMA in absence of the drug.¹⁰ In the case of patients with MM, other causes of TMA have also been described, including the underlying plasma cell disorder itself and stem cell transplantation.¹⁴ In the 2 cases we have described, these alternative causes were considered unlikely given that only 1 patient underwent transplantation remotely and neither had a previous history of TMA secondary to their disease. With respect to other TMA syndromes, ADAMTS13 levels > 10% and negative stool studies for E coli O157:H7 suggested against TTP or typical HUS, respectively. No other drug culprits were identified, and the close timing between the receipt of carfilzomib and symptom onset supported a causal relationship.

Because specific therapies are lacking, management of DITMA has traditionally included drug discontinuation and supportive care for end-organ injury.⁵ The terminal complement inhibitor, eculizumab, improves hematologic abnormalities and renal function in patients with atypical HUS but its use for treating patients with DITMA is not standard.¹⁵ Therefore, the decision to administer eculizumab to our 2 patients was driven by their severe renal insufficiency without improvement after plasma exchange, which suggested a phenotype similar to atypical HUS. After administration of eculizumab, renal function stabilized and then gradually improved over weeks to months, a time course similar to that described in cases of patients with DITMA secondary to other anticancer therapies treated with eculizumab.¹⁶ Although these results suggest a potential role for eculizumab in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA, distinguishing the benefit of eculizumab over drug discontinuation alone remains challenging, and well-designed prospective investigations are needed.

Conclusions

DITMA is a known risk of proteasome inhibitors and is listed as a safety warning in the prescribing information for bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib.¹² Given the overall rarity of this adverse event, the simultaneous presentation of our 2 cases was unexpected and underscores the need for heightened awareness in clinical practice. In addition, while no underlying complement mutations were identified, eculizumab was used in both cases to successfully stabilize renal function. Further research investigating the efficacy of eculizumab and the role of complement activation in proteasome inhibitor–induced TMA will be valuable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the patients whose histories are reported in this manuscript as well as the physicians and staff who provided care during the hospitalizations and beyond. We also thank Oscar Silva, MD, PhD, for his assistance in reviewing and formatting the peripheral blood smear images.

New research shows that the metastatic spread of breast cancer occurs predominantly during sleep, a discovery the investigators called “striking and unexpected.”

“This has not been shown before [and] we were surprised, indeed,” Nicola Aceto, PhD, professor of molecular oncology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, said in an interview.

The findings carry potential implications for the timing of biopsy and treatment of metastasis-prone cancers, the authors said.

The study was published online in Nature. 

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are generally believed to shed constantly or following particular events such as surgery or physical activity; however, the processes that regulate tumor cell metastasis and how circadian rhythms may play into tumorigenesis remain unclear.

To better understand these processes, Dr. Aceto and colleagues collected blood samples from 30 women with breast cancer at 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. – times representing the body’s resting and active phases, respectively.

The researchers observed that more than 78% of all CTCs obtained were from samples taken during the resting phase.

This finding is astounding, Harrison Ball, a PhD candidate, and Sunitha Nagrath, PhD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in Nature News & Views .

Dr. Aceto and colleagues also found that CTCs generated at night divide more quickly and therefore have a higher potential to metastasize, compared with those generated during the day, which “are devoid of metastatic ability,” according to the authors, who obtained similar results in a series of mouse models.

The team also observed that key circadian rhythm hormones (such as melatonin, testosterone, and glucocorticoids) regulate CTC generation, and insulin promotes tumor cell proliferation in a time-dependent manner, suggesting a “need for time-controlled approaches for the characterization and treatment of breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
 

Practice changing?

Dr. Ball and Dr. Nagrath said the time-dependent nature of CTC dynamics could very well transform how cancer patients are assessed and treated.

“The data pointing to CTC proliferation and release during the rest phase suggest that doctors might need to become more conscious of when to administer specific treatments,” they wrote.

Both cautioned, however, that large clinical trials would be needed before any consideration of circadian rhythms is incorporated into standard practice. It’s also unclear whether these results in breast cancer hold true for other tumor types.

Mariana G. Figueiro, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that, if studies confirm more metastatic spread at night, “there is an opportunity to treat patients at strategic times.”

Dr. Figueiro, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, also saw a potential impact on the timing of blood draws. “I think tightening up on how people do biopsies and bloodwork based on circadian time is important.”

Marleen Meyers, MD, agreed that these findings could have many clinical implications.

“The most obvious is that the time of day [that] treatment is administered may influence efficacy,” said Dr. Meyers, clinical professor of medicine at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

But, Dr. Meyers noted, the benefits of treating someone at night would need to be weighed against the downsides of interrupting a person’s normal sleep-wake cycle. “If this finding is clinically important it will be a challenge incorporating this into clinical care,” she said.

The study had no funding reported. Dr. Aceto is a cofounder and member of the board of PAGE Therapeutics, listed as an inventor in patent applications related to circulating tumor cells, a paid consultant for several companies, and a Novartis shareholder. One coauthor is a cofounder of PAGE Therapeutics. All other authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Meyers and Dr. Figueiro reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research shows that the metastatic spread of breast cancer occurs predominantly during sleep, a discovery the investigators called “striking and unexpected.”

“This has not been shown before [and] we were surprised, indeed,” Nicola Aceto, PhD, professor of molecular oncology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, said in an interview.

The findings carry potential implications for the timing of biopsy and treatment of metastasis-prone cancers, the authors said.

The study was published online in Nature. 

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are generally believed to shed constantly or following particular events such as surgery or physical activity; however, the processes that regulate tumor cell metastasis and how circadian rhythms may play into tumorigenesis remain unclear.

To better understand these processes, Dr. Aceto and colleagues collected blood samples from 30 women with breast cancer at 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. – times representing the body’s resting and active phases, respectively.

The researchers observed that more than 78% of all CTCs obtained were from samples taken during the resting phase.

This finding is astounding, Harrison Ball, a PhD candidate, and Sunitha Nagrath, PhD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in Nature News & Views .

Dr. Aceto and colleagues also found that CTCs generated at night divide more quickly and therefore have a higher potential to metastasize, compared with those generated during the day, which “are devoid of metastatic ability,” according to the authors, who obtained similar results in a series of mouse models.

The team also observed that key circadian rhythm hormones (such as melatonin, testosterone, and glucocorticoids) regulate CTC generation, and insulin promotes tumor cell proliferation in a time-dependent manner, suggesting a “need for time-controlled approaches for the characterization and treatment of breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
 

Practice changing?

Dr. Ball and Dr. Nagrath said the time-dependent nature of CTC dynamics could very well transform how cancer patients are assessed and treated.

“The data pointing to CTC proliferation and release during the rest phase suggest that doctors might need to become more conscious of when to administer specific treatments,” they wrote.

Both cautioned, however, that large clinical trials would be needed before any consideration of circadian rhythms is incorporated into standard practice. It’s also unclear whether these results in breast cancer hold true for other tumor types.

Mariana G. Figueiro, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that, if studies confirm more metastatic spread at night, “there is an opportunity to treat patients at strategic times.”

Dr. Figueiro, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, also saw a potential impact on the timing of blood draws. “I think tightening up on how people do biopsies and bloodwork based on circadian time is important.”

Marleen Meyers, MD, agreed that these findings could have many clinical implications.

“The most obvious is that the time of day [that] treatment is administered may influence efficacy,” said Dr. Meyers, clinical professor of medicine at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

But, Dr. Meyers noted, the benefits of treating someone at night would need to be weighed against the downsides of interrupting a person’s normal sleep-wake cycle. “If this finding is clinically important it will be a challenge incorporating this into clinical care,” she said.

The study had no funding reported. Dr. Aceto is a cofounder and member of the board of PAGE Therapeutics, listed as an inventor in patent applications related to circulating tumor cells, a paid consultant for several companies, and a Novartis shareholder. One coauthor is a cofounder of PAGE Therapeutics. All other authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Meyers and Dr. Figueiro reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research shows that the metastatic spread of breast cancer occurs predominantly during sleep, a discovery the investigators called “striking and unexpected.”

“This has not been shown before [and] we were surprised, indeed,” Nicola Aceto, PhD, professor of molecular oncology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, said in an interview.

The findings carry potential implications for the timing of biopsy and treatment of metastasis-prone cancers, the authors said.

The study was published online in Nature. 

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are generally believed to shed constantly or following particular events such as surgery or physical activity; however, the processes that regulate tumor cell metastasis and how circadian rhythms may play into tumorigenesis remain unclear.

To better understand these processes, Dr. Aceto and colleagues collected blood samples from 30 women with breast cancer at 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. – times representing the body’s resting and active phases, respectively.

The researchers observed that more than 78% of all CTCs obtained were from samples taken during the resting phase.

This finding is astounding, Harrison Ball, a PhD candidate, and Sunitha Nagrath, PhD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in Nature News & Views .

Dr. Aceto and colleagues also found that CTCs generated at night divide more quickly and therefore have a higher potential to metastasize, compared with those generated during the day, which “are devoid of metastatic ability,” according to the authors, who obtained similar results in a series of mouse models.

The team also observed that key circadian rhythm hormones (such as melatonin, testosterone, and glucocorticoids) regulate CTC generation, and insulin promotes tumor cell proliferation in a time-dependent manner, suggesting a “need for time-controlled approaches for the characterization and treatment of breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
 

Practice changing?

Dr. Ball and Dr. Nagrath said the time-dependent nature of CTC dynamics could very well transform how cancer patients are assessed and treated.

“The data pointing to CTC proliferation and release during the rest phase suggest that doctors might need to become more conscious of when to administer specific treatments,” they wrote.

Both cautioned, however, that large clinical trials would be needed before any consideration of circadian rhythms is incorporated into standard practice. It’s also unclear whether these results in breast cancer hold true for other tumor types.

Mariana G. Figueiro, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that, if studies confirm more metastatic spread at night, “there is an opportunity to treat patients at strategic times.”

Dr. Figueiro, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, also saw a potential impact on the timing of blood draws. “I think tightening up on how people do biopsies and bloodwork based on circadian time is important.”

Marleen Meyers, MD, agreed that these findings could have many clinical implications.

“The most obvious is that the time of day [that] treatment is administered may influence efficacy,” said Dr. Meyers, clinical professor of medicine at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

But, Dr. Meyers noted, the benefits of treating someone at night would need to be weighed against the downsides of interrupting a person’s normal sleep-wake cycle. “If this finding is clinically important it will be a challenge incorporating this into clinical care,” she said.

The study had no funding reported. Dr. Aceto is a cofounder and member of the board of PAGE Therapeutics, listed as an inventor in patent applications related to circulating tumor cells, a paid consultant for several companies, and a Novartis shareholder. One coauthor is a cofounder of PAGE Therapeutics. All other authors declare no competing interests. Dr. Meyers and Dr. Figueiro reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

A new study finds that mortality is significantly higher among patients with advanced solid tumors who are admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy treatment.

The findings – released in a poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology – found that patients with solid tumors were more likely to be treated for nonurgent indications, not be referred to palliative care, and die within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies.

Decisions about inpatient chemotherapy should not be uniform and instead should be based on a case-by-case basis, said Natalie Berger, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital,, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Inpatient chemotherapy can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when chemotherapy must be given in the hospital and when it must be administered quickly after a patient presents with cancer symptoms and needs relief, she said.

However, “sometimes patients are admitted due to infection, side effects of chemotherapy or cancer, or for reasons unrelated to their cancer, and chemotherapy may be administered when it is not appropriate. It is also overutilized at the end of life which can lead to more aggressive end-of-life care rather than focusing on quality of life and supportive care,” Dr. Berger said.

The study is based on a retrospective chart review of 880 patients admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017 to receive chemotherapy.

They found that the type of tumor was used to determine the urgency of an in-hospital stay for chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P = .001). Patients with solid tumors or older patients or patients with a functional impairment score (Karnofsky Performance Scale) of 50% were less likely to respond to chemotherapy. There was also a decrease in quality of life among these patients, but only 46% of patients with solid tumors and 15% of patients with hematologic malignancies met with a palliative care professional.

One-third (34%) of patients with solid tumors didn’t have urgent indications, 43% of patients had no response to inpatient chemotherapy, and 20% died within 60 days, compared with patients with hematologic malignancies (19%, 19%, and 9%, respectively).

“There are many reasons why this [high mortality rate in patients with solid tumors] may be happening. Solid tumor patients are more often admitted at a later stage of their cancer when they are sicker, and they were also less likely to have a response to inpatient chemotherapy. Older patients and patients with a poor performance status were also less likely to respond to chemotherapy. This indicates that these patients were sicker, and chemotherapy use may not have been appropriate and palliative care may be underutilized,” she said.

Dr. Berger and colleagues have created a standardized protocol to assess “the appropriateness” of inpatient chemotherapy, improve quality of life, and reduce chemotherapy and health care utilization at the end of life. The protocol has been implemented as a pilot program at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Berger said.

“Any inpatient chemotherapy case that meets standard accepted criteria for required inpatient administration are auto-approved through the electronic survey. For cases outside of standard criteria, further information must be inputted to determine appropriateness of inpatient treatment and are then scored electronically and reviewed by committee physicians and pharmacists,” she said.

Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., who was not affiliated with the study, said that inpatient chemotherapy treatment is under scrutiny elsewhere as well.

“There has been recognition that patients who are otherwise sick enough to require hospital admission are often too sick to benefit from chemotherapy,” although there are exceptions. “There is certainly a movement to limit inpatient chemotherapy to situations where it is most likely to be beneficial. Some of this is driven by cost pressures. For instance, Medicare pays for inpatient hospitalizations using the DRG [diagnosis-related group] system. Hospitals cannot charge a la carte for treatments given in the hospital. Instead, they are reimbursed at a fixed rate based on the hospital diagnoses. This will often lead to poor reimbursement of high-cost cancer treatments.”

Dr. Brooks said the study offers insight into who’s getting inpatient chemotherapy. However, “what I can’t tell from this poster is how often the solid tumor patients are getting first-line chemotherapy [as] these patients may be presenting late or may have a potentially treatable cancer with a narrow closing window for treatment versus later-line chemotherapy.”

He also noted that patient and family wishes are missing from the research. “This is critical. Patients and families should be informed that inpatient chemotherapy may not provide the benefit they are hoping for, especially for patients with solid tumors starting later lines of therapy. Patients should be informed that there are alternatives to inpatient chemotherapy, such as hospice referral or waiting for possible outpatient treatment – if their condition improves. But when a patient wants to try inpatient chemotherapy and their doctor wants to offer it, then it is likely a reasonable thing to try.”

Going forward, he said, “qualitative study is needed to better understand when and why inpatient chemotherapy is used. There are likely some clear good uses and some clear bad uses of inpatient chemotherapy. Can outpatient regimens be substituted for the regimens where patients are directly admitted? Or, can outpatient protocols be devised for these regimens? Are there specific situations where inpatient chemotherapy is the right thing (leukemia, esophageal cancer with worsening dysphagia, etc.)?”

No study funding was received.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently wrapped its annual meeting in Chicago. Many of us attended virtually, or in person, and were wowed by some of the abstracts and their implications for our patients – some practice changing. Here, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

The plenary session did not disappoint. In abstract LBA1, investigators presented first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 with either bevacizumab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type positive patients. This was the phase 3 PARADIGM trial.

The primary outcome for this study was overall survival. It included 823 patients who were randomized 1:1 with a subset analysis of whether the primary tumor was on the left or right side of the colon. At 61 months follow-up, the median overall survival results for left-sided colon cancer was 38 months versus 34 months. It was statistically significant favoring the panitumumab arm. It improved the curable resection rate for patients with left-sided tumors from 11% in the bevacizumab arm to 18% in the panitumumab arm. Interestingly, patients randomized with right-sided tumors showed no difference in overall survival. The investigator, Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, said the study findings support the use of mFOLFOX6 with panitumumab in left-sided RAS wild type as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal patients. 
 

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

Shanu Modi, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, received a standing ovation and deserved it. In the phase 3 clinical trial DESTINY-Breast04 (abstract LBA3), she demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for patients with metastatic breast cancer who were HER2 low (IHC 1+ or 2+ ISH-), led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in both progression free survival and overall survival. In this trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of chemotherapy. All patients had at least one to two lines of chemotherapy before entering the trial. Hormone-positive patients were allowed if they had already received and failed, or progressed on hormone therapy. 

Previously, most patients were treated either with eribulin with some receiving capecitabine, gemcitabine or taxane, or hormone therapy if hormone positive.

The progression-free survival was 10.1 versus 5.4 months in hormone-positive patients, and in all patients (hormone receptor positive or negative), there was a likewise improvement of 9.9 versus 5.1 months progression free survival.

Overall survival was equally impressive. In the hormone receptor–positive patients, the hazard ratio was 0.64 with a 23.9 versus 17.5 month survival. If all patients were included, the HR was again 0.64 with 23.4 versus 16.8 month survival. Even the triple-negative breast cancer patients had a HR of 0.48 with 18.2 versus 8.3 months survival. Adverse events were quite tolerable with some nausea, some decreased white count, and only an interstitial lung disease of grade 2 or less in 12%. 

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a targeted treatment which, in addition to striking its target, also targets other tumor cells that are part of the cancer. The results of this study may lead to a new standard of care of this patient population.

The study by Dr. Modi and colleagues was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

In abstract LBA4, Paul G. Richardson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, asks if autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) can improve outcomes after induction with an RVD regimen (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) maintenance for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma in the DETERMINATION study.

The take home here was quite interesting. In fact, there is no difference in overall survival if patients get this standard RVD/lenalidomide maintenance induction with or without ASCT. However, the progression free survival was better with ASCT: 46 versus 67 months (improvement of 21 months). However, there were some caveats. There was toxicity and change in quality of life for a while in those patients receiving ASCT as would be expected. Furthermore, the study only allowed 65 years old or younger and ASCT may not be wise for older patients. The discussant made a strong point that African Americans tend to have higher risk disease with different mutations and might also be better served by have ASCT later.

The conclusion was that, given all the new therapies in myeloma for second line and beyond, ASCT should be a discussion with each new patient and not an automatic decision.

This study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

In patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adagrasib was found to be well tolerated and “demonstrates promising efficacy” for patients with the KRAS G12C mutation (KRYSTAL-1, abstract 9002). This was a phase 2 registration trial of 116 patients who were treated with 600 mg of adagrasib twice orally. Patients all had previous chemotherapy or immunotherapy or both. The overall response rate was a surprisingly good 43% (complete response and partial response). Disease control was an incredible 80% if stable disease was included. The duration of response was 8.5 months, progression-free survival was 6.5 months, and overall survival was 12.6 months. Furthermore, 33% of those with brain metastases had a complete response or partial response.

The take-home message is that, since 15% of NSCLC metastatic patients are KRAS mutant G12C, we should be watching for such patients in our biomarker analysis. While we have sotorasib – approved by the Food and Drug Administration for NSCLC – the results of this study suggests we may have another new molecule in the same class.
 

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

It may be time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy, such as nivolumab, for patients with NSCLC in order to achieve the best response possible.

In NADIM II, investigators led by Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, confirmed the superiority of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. NADIM included patients with resectable stage IIIA/B NSCLC who were randomized 2:1 to receive carboplatin taxol neoadjuvant therapy with or without nivolumab before and after surgery. The pathological complete response rates overall were 36% versus 7%, favoring the nivolumab arm, but even higher pCR rates occurred in patients with PD-L1 over 50%.

In closing, always check MMR, KRAS, BRAF, and HER2. For wild-type left-sided mCRC, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with an anti-EGFR. For KRAS mutant or right-sided colon tumor, consider FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab, followed by maintenance 5FU or capecitabine, with or without bevacizumab.

CHICAGO – Mortality rates from melanoma have fallen in recent years, likely due to the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors, according to a new analysis of the National Cancer Institute SEER database between 1975 and 2019.

“This is very encouraging data and represents the real-world effectiveness of these therapies. The cost of these therapies can be prohibitive for universal treatment access, so the ways to address the accessibility of these treatments and the health care costs need to be supported,” said lead author Navkirat Kaur Kahlon MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio). The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

According to the American Cancer Society, the 5-year mortality for regional melanoma metastasis is 68%, and 30% for distant metastasis. However, these numbers may underestimate current survival. “People now being diagnosed with melanoma may have a better outlook than these numbers show. Treatments have improved over time, and these numbers are based on people who were diagnosed and treated at least 5 years earlier,” the American Cancer Society wrote.

Other studies have found similar trends. According to Cancer Research UK, 5-year melanoma skin cancer survival approximately doubled, from 46% to 90%, between 1971 and 2010. And, 1-year survival increased from 74% to 96%, but these improvements predated immune checkpoint inhibitors. An analysis of the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics found an increasing incidence of melanoma, but a drop in mortality since 2013. A study of melanoma outcomes in Hungary also found increased incidence, while mortality declined by 16.55% between 2011 and 2019 (P =.013).

“These new drugs, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies, are effective treatments in the clinical trial data, so the magnitude of drop seen in population mortality was not surprising but very exciting,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The findings are encouraging, but prevention remains the most important strategy. “The utility of sun-protective strategies and policies should be encouraged,” she added.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has poor efficacy against metastatic melanoma, but novel therapies such as checkpoint inhibitors increased expected survival from months to years. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world population is deriving the same benefit,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The researchers found that the annual percentage change (APC) melanoma mortality rate (MMR) was +1.65% between 1975 and 1988 (P < .01). The APC was 0.01% between 1988 and 2013, which was not statistically significant (P = .85). Between 2013 and 2017, APC was –6.24% (P < .01), and it was –1.56% between 2017 and 2019 (P = .53).

The increase in melanoma mortality between 1975 and 1988 may be due to changes in the way that SEER data was collected. “It is possible that this increase was at least in part due to better capturing of the data. There may also be a contribution of increased mortality due to increased incidence of diagnoses related to increased UV exposure. From the 1920s, increased sun exposure and bronzed skin became fashionable. In the 1940s-1960s, tanning oils and lotions became more popular, and there may have been an increase in UV exposure during that time, which later led to an increase in diagnosis and, without effective therapies, mortality. Further, the use of indoor tanning beds from the 1970s onward may have contributed to increased UV exposure, incidence, and mortality,” she said.

On the other hand, the researchers noted a slowing of mortality reduction between 2017 and 2019. This was not a surprise, Dr. Kahlon said, since by that time most novel therapies were being introduced in the adjuvant setting. “The mortality benefit, if any, from adjuvant treatments is seen over a longer period and may not yet be captured in SEER data. Even the clinical trial data for most of these treatments have not shown an overall survival advantage and require more time for the data to mature. It will be interesting to see how these trends change in the near future,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature. Dr. Kahlon has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Mortality rates from melanoma have fallen in recent years, likely due to the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors, according to a new analysis of the National Cancer Institute SEER database between 1975 and 2019.

“This is very encouraging data and represents the real-world effectiveness of these therapies. The cost of these therapies can be prohibitive for universal treatment access, so the ways to address the accessibility of these treatments and the health care costs need to be supported,” said lead author Navkirat Kaur Kahlon MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio). The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

According to the American Cancer Society, the 5-year mortality for regional melanoma metastasis is 68%, and 30% for distant metastasis. However, these numbers may underestimate current survival. “People now being diagnosed with melanoma may have a better outlook than these numbers show. Treatments have improved over time, and these numbers are based on people who were diagnosed and treated at least 5 years earlier,” the American Cancer Society wrote.

Other studies have found similar trends. According to Cancer Research UK, 5-year melanoma skin cancer survival approximately doubled, from 46% to 90%, between 1971 and 2010. And, 1-year survival increased from 74% to 96%, but these improvements predated immune checkpoint inhibitors. An analysis of the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics found an increasing incidence of melanoma, but a drop in mortality since 2013. A study of melanoma outcomes in Hungary also found increased incidence, while mortality declined by 16.55% between 2011 and 2019 (P =.013).

“These new drugs, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies, are effective treatments in the clinical trial data, so the magnitude of drop seen in population mortality was not surprising but very exciting,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The findings are encouraging, but prevention remains the most important strategy. “The utility of sun-protective strategies and policies should be encouraged,” she added.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has poor efficacy against metastatic melanoma, but novel therapies such as checkpoint inhibitors increased expected survival from months to years. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world population is deriving the same benefit,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The researchers found that the annual percentage change (APC) melanoma mortality rate (MMR) was +1.65% between 1975 and 1988 (P < .01). The APC was 0.01% between 1988 and 2013, which was not statistically significant (P = .85). Between 2013 and 2017, APC was –6.24% (P < .01), and it was –1.56% between 2017 and 2019 (P = .53).

The increase in melanoma mortality between 1975 and 1988 may be due to changes in the way that SEER data was collected. “It is possible that this increase was at least in part due to better capturing of the data. There may also be a contribution of increased mortality due to increased incidence of diagnoses related to increased UV exposure. From the 1920s, increased sun exposure and bronzed skin became fashionable. In the 1940s-1960s, tanning oils and lotions became more popular, and there may have been an increase in UV exposure during that time, which later led to an increase in diagnosis and, without effective therapies, mortality. Further, the use of indoor tanning beds from the 1970s onward may have contributed to increased UV exposure, incidence, and mortality,” she said.

On the other hand, the researchers noted a slowing of mortality reduction between 2017 and 2019. This was not a surprise, Dr. Kahlon said, since by that time most novel therapies were being introduced in the adjuvant setting. “The mortality benefit, if any, from adjuvant treatments is seen over a longer period and may not yet be captured in SEER data. Even the clinical trial data for most of these treatments have not shown an overall survival advantage and require more time for the data to mature. It will be interesting to see how these trends change in the near future,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature. Dr. Kahlon has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Mortality rates from melanoma have fallen in recent years, likely due to the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors, according to a new analysis of the National Cancer Institute SEER database between 1975 and 2019.

“This is very encouraging data and represents the real-world effectiveness of these therapies. The cost of these therapies can be prohibitive for universal treatment access, so the ways to address the accessibility of these treatments and the health care costs need to be supported,” said lead author Navkirat Kaur Kahlon MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio). The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

According to the American Cancer Society, the 5-year mortality for regional melanoma metastasis is 68%, and 30% for distant metastasis. However, these numbers may underestimate current survival. “People now being diagnosed with melanoma may have a better outlook than these numbers show. Treatments have improved over time, and these numbers are based on people who were diagnosed and treated at least 5 years earlier,” the American Cancer Society wrote.

Other studies have found similar trends. According to Cancer Research UK, 5-year melanoma skin cancer survival approximately doubled, from 46% to 90%, between 1971 and 2010. And, 1-year survival increased from 74% to 96%, but these improvements predated immune checkpoint inhibitors. An analysis of the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics found an increasing incidence of melanoma, but a drop in mortality since 2013. A study of melanoma outcomes in Hungary also found increased incidence, while mortality declined by 16.55% between 2011 and 2019 (P =.013).

“These new drugs, which include immunotherapies and targeted therapies, are effective treatments in the clinical trial data, so the magnitude of drop seen in population mortality was not surprising but very exciting,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The findings are encouraging, but prevention remains the most important strategy. “The utility of sun-protective strategies and policies should be encouraged,” she added.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has poor efficacy against metastatic melanoma, but novel therapies such as checkpoint inhibitors increased expected survival from months to years. “Given the magnitude of benefit compared to traditional chemotherapy in clinical trials, we decided to see if the real-world population is deriving the same benefit,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The researchers found that the annual percentage change (APC) melanoma mortality rate (MMR) was +1.65% between 1975 and 1988 (P < .01). The APC was 0.01% between 1988 and 2013, which was not statistically significant (P = .85). Between 2013 and 2017, APC was –6.24% (P < .01), and it was –1.56% between 2017 and 2019 (P = .53).

The increase in melanoma mortality between 1975 and 1988 may be due to changes in the way that SEER data was collected. “It is possible that this increase was at least in part due to better capturing of the data. There may also be a contribution of increased mortality due to increased incidence of diagnoses related to increased UV exposure. From the 1920s, increased sun exposure and bronzed skin became fashionable. In the 1940s-1960s, tanning oils and lotions became more popular, and there may have been an increase in UV exposure during that time, which later led to an increase in diagnosis and, without effective therapies, mortality. Further, the use of indoor tanning beds from the 1970s onward may have contributed to increased UV exposure, incidence, and mortality,” she said.

On the other hand, the researchers noted a slowing of mortality reduction between 2017 and 2019. This was not a surprise, Dr. Kahlon said, since by that time most novel therapies were being introduced in the adjuvant setting. “The mortality benefit, if any, from adjuvant treatments is seen over a longer period and may not yet be captured in SEER data. Even the clinical trial data for most of these treatments have not shown an overall survival advantage and require more time for the data to mature. It will be interesting to see how these trends change in the near future,” Dr. Kahlon said.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature. Dr. Kahlon has no relevant financial disclosures.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

We’ve still got some work to do before we can say with authority whether concurrent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy is better than concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there has been some notable progress in this area, we need phase 3 trials that compare the two therapeutic approaches.

Investigators reporting at the 2022 annual meeting of American Society of Clinical Oncology focused primarily on neoadjuvant treatment, which I’ll address here.

In the randomized, phase 2 NADIM II clinical trial reported at the meeting, researchers expanded on the results of NADIM published in 2020 in the Lancet Oncology and in May 2022 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology along with CheckMate 816 results published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In each of these three studies, researchers compared nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (abstract 8501) as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable stage IIIA NSCLC. In the study reported at ASCO 2022, patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA-B (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) NSCLC and no known EGFR/ALK alterations, were randomized to receive preoperative nivolumab plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin; n = 57) or chemotherapy (n = 29) alone followed by surgery.

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR); secondary endpoints included major pathological response, safety and tolerability, impact on surgical issues such as delayed or canceled surgeries or length of hospital stay, overall survival and progression free survival. The pCR rate was 36.8% in the neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm and 6.9% in the chemotherapy alone arm. (P = .0068). 25% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm had grade 3-4 adverse events, compared with 10.3% in the control arm. 93% of patients on the nivolumab plus chemo arm underwent definitive surgery whereas 69.0% of the patients on the chemo alone arm had definitive surgery. (P = .008)
 

What else did we learn about neoadjuvant treatment at the meeting?

Investigators looking at the optimal number of neoadjuvant cycles (abstract 8500) found that three cycles of sintilimab (an investigational PD-1 inhibitor) produced a numerically higher major pathological response rate, compared with two cycles (when given in concert with platinum-doublet chemotherapy). And, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not result in significant survival benefits when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (abstract 8503).

Of course, when it comes to resectable NSCLC, the goal of treatment is to increase the cure rate and improve survival. No randomized studies have reported yet on overall survival, probably because they are too immature. Instead, disease-free survival (DFS) or event-free survival (EFS) are often used as surrogate endpoints. Since none of the studies reported at ASCO reported on DFS or EFS, we need to look elsewhere. CheckMate 816 was a phase 3 study which randomized patients with stages IB-IIIA NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The median EFS was 31.6 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months with chemotherapy alone (P = .005). The percentage of patients with a pCR was 24.0% and 2.2%, respectively (P < .001).

We all know one has to be careful when doing cross-trial comparisons as these studies differ by the percentage of patients with various stages of disease, the type of immunotherapy and chemotherapy used, etc. However, I think we can agree that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy results in better outcomes than chemotherapy alone.

Of course, resectable NSCLC is, by definition, resectable. And traditionally, resection is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to eradicate micrometastases. Unfortunately, the current standard of care for completely resected early-stage NSCLC (stage I [tumor ≥ 4 cm] to IIIA) involves adjuvant platinum-based combination chemotherapy which results in only a modest 4%-5% improvement in survival versus observation.

Given these modest results, as in the neoadjuvant space, investigators have looked at the benefit of adding immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy. One such study has been reported. IMpower 010 randomly assigned patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) to IIIA NSCLC, whose tumor cells expressed at least 1% PD-L1, to receive adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care after adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. In the stage II-IIIA population whose tumors expressed PD-L1 on 1% or more of tumor cells, 3-year DFS rates were 60% and 48% in the atezolizumab and best supportive care arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0·66 P =·.0039). In all patients in the stage II-IIIA population, the 3-year DFS rates were 56% in the atezolizumab group and 49% in the best supportive care group, (HR, 0.79; P = .020).

KEYNOTE-091, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, randomized early-stage NSCLC patients following complete resection and adjuvant chemotherapy to pembrolizumab or placebo. Median DFS for the overall population was 53.6 months for patients in the pembro arm versus 42 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.76; P = .0014). Interestingly, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 with at least 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .14). Although the contradictory results of PD-L1 as a biomarker is puzzling, I think we can agree that the addition of immunotherapy following adjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone.
 

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with danger. Until we have a phase 3 study comparing concurrent neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy with concurrent adjuvant chemo/immunotherapy, I do not think we can answer the question “which is better?” However, there are some caveats to keep in mind when deciding on which approach to recommend to our patients: First, neoadjuvant treatment requires biomarker testing to ensure the patient does not have EGFR or ALK mutations. This will necessitate a delay in the operation. Will patients be willing to wait? Will the surgeon? Or, would patients prefer to proceed with surgery while the results are pending? Yes, neoadjuvant therapy gives you information regarding the pCR rate, but does that help you in subsequent management of the patient? We do not know.

Secondly, the two adjuvant studies used adjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy, as contrasted to the neoadjuvant study which used concurrent chemo/immunotherapy. Given the longer duration of treatment in postoperative sequential adjuvant studies, there tends to be more drop off because of patients being unwilling or unfit postoperatively to receive long courses of therapy. In IMpower 010, 1,269 patients completed adjuvant chemotherapy; 1,005 were randomized, and of the 507 assigned to the atezolizumab/chemo group, only 323 completed treatment.

Finally, we must beware of using neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to “down-stage” a patient. KEYNOTE-091 included patients with IIIA disease and no benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy was found in this subgroup of patients, which leads me to wonder if these patients were appropriately selected as surgical candidates. In the NADIM II trials, 9 of 29 patients on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy were not resected.

So, many questions remain. In addition to the ones we’ve raised, there is a clear and immediate need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In the NADIM II trial, PD-L1 expression was a predictive biomarker of response. The pCR rate for patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of less than 1%, 1%-49%, and 50% or higher was 15%, 41.7%, and 61.1%, respectively. However, in KEYNOTE-091, the benefit was not seen in patients with PD-L1 of at least than 50%, where the 18-month DFS rate was 71.7% in the pembro arm and 70.2% in the placebo arm.

Another possible biomarker: circulating tumor DNA. In the first NADIM study, three low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.20 and HR, 0.07, respectively). Although clinical response did not predict survival outcomes, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (HR, 0.26 and HR0.04, respectively). Similarly, in CheckMate 816, clearance of ctDNA was associated with longer EFS in patients with ctDNA clearance than in those without ctDNA clearance in both the nivolumab/chemotherapy group (HR, 0.60) and the chemotherapy-alone group (HR, 0.63).

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

A new artificial intelligence (AI) system can help expert endoscopists improve their colonoscopies, a new study indicates.

Endoscopists using the computer program SKOUT (Iterative Scopes) achieved a 27% better detection rate of adenomas per colonoscopy, compared with endoscopists working without computer assistance, said lead author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, director of outcomes research in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University.

The study showed that AI colonoscopy systems can work in a routine population of U.S. patients, Dr. Shaukat said in an interview.

“As gastroenterologists, we are very excited,” she said.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology and was presented at the annual Digestive Disease^® Week.

Previous research has shown that experienced endoscopists miss many polyps. To improve their detection rate, multiple companies have used machine learning to develop algorithms to identify suspicious areas.

“Once the computer sees the polyp, it puts a bounding box around it,” said Dr. Shaukat. “It draws the attention of the endoscopist to it. It assists the endoscopist but doesn’t replace the endoscopist.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two such systems: EndoScreener (Wision AI) and GI Genius (Cosmo Pharmaceuticals).

The SKOUT algorithm was trained on 3,616 full-length colonoscopy procedure videos from multiple centers. In bench testing, it achieved a 93.5% polyp-level true positive rate and a 2.3% false positive rate.
 

Randomized trial pits AI against standard procedure

To see how well the system works in the clinic, Dr. Shaukat and colleagues recruited 22 U.S. board-certified gastroenterologists from five academic and community centers. The gastroenterologists all had a minimum adenoma detection rate of 25%, defined as the number of colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma is found, divided by the number of colonoscopies performed. All the gastroenterologists had performed a minimum of 1,000 colonoscopy procedures.

The researchers randomly assigned 682 patients to undergo colonoscopy with the SKOUT and 677 to undergo colonoscopy using the standard procedure. The patients were aged 40 years or older and were scheduled for either screening or surveillance.

The endoscopists who received computer assistance detected 1.05 adenomas per colonoscopy versus 0.83 for those who did not have computer assistance, a statistically significant difference.

The proportion of resections with clinically significant histology was 71.7% with standard colonoscopies versus 67.4% with computer-assisted colonoscopies. This fell within the 14% margin that the researchers had set to show noninferiority for the computer system.

“The important thing is not just detecting all polyps but the polyps we care about, which are adenomas, and doing so without increasing the false positive rate,” said Dr. Shaukat.

The adenoma detection rate was 43.9% for the standard procedure and 47.8% for the computer-assisted procedure. This difference was not statistically significant, but Dr. Shaukat argued that the adenoma detection rate is not the best measure of success, because endoscopists sometimes stop looking for polyps once they find one.

The overall sessile serrated lesion detection rate for the standard colonoscopies was 16.0% versus 12.6% for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which also was not statistically significant.
 

Next steps

This study is important because it was a large, multicenter trial in the United States, said Omer Ahmad, BSc, MBBS, MRCP, a gastroenterologist and clinical researcher at University College London, who was not involved in the study. Most of the trials of AI have been in China or Europe. “It was very important just to see this replicated in the U.S. population.”

The average procedure time was 15.41 minutes for the standard colonoscopies versus 15.82 minutes for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which was not statistically different.

“It is important to note that the studies so far suggest that false positives do not have a significant impact on workflow,” said Dr. Ahmad.

The next crucial step in evaluating AI colonoscopy will be to track the effects over the long term, said Dr. Shaukat.

“As these technologies get approved and we see them in practice, we need to see that it’s leading to some outcome, like reduced colon cancer,” she said.

That also may be necessary before payers in the United States are willing to pay the additional cost for this technology, she added.

In the meantime, Dr. Ahmad said computer assistance is improving his own colonoscopies.

“I have found the systems have spotted some polyps that I may have otherwise missed,” he said. “There is a false positive rate, but for me, it doesn’t distract from my workflow.”

He believes the systems will be particularly helpful in improving the performance of less-skilled endoscopists.

He is also looking forward to systems that can help complete the reports needed at the end of each colonoscopy. “Most of us dislike having to write a laborious report and having to code everything at the end of the procedure,” he said.

The study was funded by Iterative Scopes. Dr. Shaukat reported having received research funding to her institution for the current study from Iterative Scopes and consulting fees from Freenome and Medtronic. Dr. Ahmad reports receiving speaker fees from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology/Medtronic.

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

A new artificial intelligence (AI) system can help expert endoscopists improve their colonoscopies, a new study indicates.

Endoscopists using the computer program SKOUT (Iterative Scopes) achieved a 27% better detection rate of adenomas per colonoscopy, compared with endoscopists working without computer assistance, said lead author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, director of outcomes research in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University.

The study showed that AI colonoscopy systems can work in a routine population of U.S. patients, Dr. Shaukat said in an interview.

“As gastroenterologists, we are very excited,” she said.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology and was presented at the annual Digestive Disease^® Week.

Previous research has shown that experienced endoscopists miss many polyps. To improve their detection rate, multiple companies have used machine learning to develop algorithms to identify suspicious areas.

“Once the computer sees the polyp, it puts a bounding box around it,” said Dr. Shaukat. “It draws the attention of the endoscopist to it. It assists the endoscopist but doesn’t replace the endoscopist.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two such systems: EndoScreener (Wision AI) and GI Genius (Cosmo Pharmaceuticals).

The SKOUT algorithm was trained on 3,616 full-length colonoscopy procedure videos from multiple centers. In bench testing, it achieved a 93.5% polyp-level true positive rate and a 2.3% false positive rate.
 

Randomized trial pits AI against standard procedure

To see how well the system works in the clinic, Dr. Shaukat and colleagues recruited 22 U.S. board-certified gastroenterologists from five academic and community centers. The gastroenterologists all had a minimum adenoma detection rate of 25%, defined as the number of colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma is found, divided by the number of colonoscopies performed. All the gastroenterologists had performed a minimum of 1,000 colonoscopy procedures.

The researchers randomly assigned 682 patients to undergo colonoscopy with the SKOUT and 677 to undergo colonoscopy using the standard procedure. The patients were aged 40 years or older and were scheduled for either screening or surveillance.

The endoscopists who received computer assistance detected 1.05 adenomas per colonoscopy versus 0.83 for those who did not have computer assistance, a statistically significant difference.

The proportion of resections with clinically significant histology was 71.7% with standard colonoscopies versus 67.4% with computer-assisted colonoscopies. This fell within the 14% margin that the researchers had set to show noninferiority for the computer system.

“The important thing is not just detecting all polyps but the polyps we care about, which are adenomas, and doing so without increasing the false positive rate,” said Dr. Shaukat.

The adenoma detection rate was 43.9% for the standard procedure and 47.8% for the computer-assisted procedure. This difference was not statistically significant, but Dr. Shaukat argued that the adenoma detection rate is not the best measure of success, because endoscopists sometimes stop looking for polyps once they find one.

The overall sessile serrated lesion detection rate for the standard colonoscopies was 16.0% versus 12.6% for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which also was not statistically significant.
 

Next steps

This study is important because it was a large, multicenter trial in the United States, said Omer Ahmad, BSc, MBBS, MRCP, a gastroenterologist and clinical researcher at University College London, who was not involved in the study. Most of the trials of AI have been in China or Europe. “It was very important just to see this replicated in the U.S. population.”

The average procedure time was 15.41 minutes for the standard colonoscopies versus 15.82 minutes for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which was not statistically different.

“It is important to note that the studies so far suggest that false positives do not have a significant impact on workflow,” said Dr. Ahmad.

The next crucial step in evaluating AI colonoscopy will be to track the effects over the long term, said Dr. Shaukat.

“As these technologies get approved and we see them in practice, we need to see that it’s leading to some outcome, like reduced colon cancer,” she said.

That also may be necessary before payers in the United States are willing to pay the additional cost for this technology, she added.

In the meantime, Dr. Ahmad said computer assistance is improving his own colonoscopies.

“I have found the systems have spotted some polyps that I may have otherwise missed,” he said. “There is a false positive rate, but for me, it doesn’t distract from my workflow.”

He believes the systems will be particularly helpful in improving the performance of less-skilled endoscopists.

He is also looking forward to systems that can help complete the reports needed at the end of each colonoscopy. “Most of us dislike having to write a laborious report and having to code everything at the end of the procedure,” he said.

The study was funded by Iterative Scopes. Dr. Shaukat reported having received research funding to her institution for the current study from Iterative Scopes and consulting fees from Freenome and Medtronic. Dr. Ahmad reports receiving speaker fees from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology/Medtronic.

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

A new artificial intelligence (AI) system can help expert endoscopists improve their colonoscopies, a new study indicates.

Endoscopists using the computer program SKOUT (Iterative Scopes) achieved a 27% better detection rate of adenomas per colonoscopy, compared with endoscopists working without computer assistance, said lead author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, director of outcomes research in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University.

The study showed that AI colonoscopy systems can work in a routine population of U.S. patients, Dr. Shaukat said in an interview.

“As gastroenterologists, we are very excited,” she said.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology and was presented at the annual Digestive Disease^® Week.

Previous research has shown that experienced endoscopists miss many polyps. To improve their detection rate, multiple companies have used machine learning to develop algorithms to identify suspicious areas.

“Once the computer sees the polyp, it puts a bounding box around it,” said Dr. Shaukat. “It draws the attention of the endoscopist to it. It assists the endoscopist but doesn’t replace the endoscopist.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two such systems: EndoScreener (Wision AI) and GI Genius (Cosmo Pharmaceuticals).

The SKOUT algorithm was trained on 3,616 full-length colonoscopy procedure videos from multiple centers. In bench testing, it achieved a 93.5% polyp-level true positive rate and a 2.3% false positive rate.
 

Randomized trial pits AI against standard procedure

To see how well the system works in the clinic, Dr. Shaukat and colleagues recruited 22 U.S. board-certified gastroenterologists from five academic and community centers. The gastroenterologists all had a minimum adenoma detection rate of 25%, defined as the number of colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma is found, divided by the number of colonoscopies performed. All the gastroenterologists had performed a minimum of 1,000 colonoscopy procedures.

The researchers randomly assigned 682 patients to undergo colonoscopy with the SKOUT and 677 to undergo colonoscopy using the standard procedure. The patients were aged 40 years or older and were scheduled for either screening or surveillance.

The endoscopists who received computer assistance detected 1.05 adenomas per colonoscopy versus 0.83 for those who did not have computer assistance, a statistically significant difference.

The proportion of resections with clinically significant histology was 71.7% with standard colonoscopies versus 67.4% with computer-assisted colonoscopies. This fell within the 14% margin that the researchers had set to show noninferiority for the computer system.

“The important thing is not just detecting all polyps but the polyps we care about, which are adenomas, and doing so without increasing the false positive rate,” said Dr. Shaukat.

The adenoma detection rate was 43.9% for the standard procedure and 47.8% for the computer-assisted procedure. This difference was not statistically significant, but Dr. Shaukat argued that the adenoma detection rate is not the best measure of success, because endoscopists sometimes stop looking for polyps once they find one.

The overall sessile serrated lesion detection rate for the standard colonoscopies was 16.0% versus 12.6% for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which also was not statistically significant.
 

Next steps

This study is important because it was a large, multicenter trial in the United States, said Omer Ahmad, BSc, MBBS, MRCP, a gastroenterologist and clinical researcher at University College London, who was not involved in the study. Most of the trials of AI have been in China or Europe. “It was very important just to see this replicated in the U.S. population.”

The average procedure time was 15.41 minutes for the standard colonoscopies versus 15.82 minutes for the computer-assisted colonoscopies, which was not statistically different.

“It is important to note that the studies so far suggest that false positives do not have a significant impact on workflow,” said Dr. Ahmad.

The next crucial step in evaluating AI colonoscopy will be to track the effects over the long term, said Dr. Shaukat.

“As these technologies get approved and we see them in practice, we need to see that it’s leading to some outcome, like reduced colon cancer,” she said.

That also may be necessary before payers in the United States are willing to pay the additional cost for this technology, she added.

In the meantime, Dr. Ahmad said computer assistance is improving his own colonoscopies.

“I have found the systems have spotted some polyps that I may have otherwise missed,” he said. “There is a false positive rate, but for me, it doesn’t distract from my workflow.”

He believes the systems will be particularly helpful in improving the performance of less-skilled endoscopists.

He is also looking forward to systems that can help complete the reports needed at the end of each colonoscopy. “Most of us dislike having to write a laborious report and having to code everything at the end of the procedure,” he said.

The study was funded by Iterative Scopes. Dr. Shaukat reported having received research funding to her institution for the current study from Iterative Scopes and consulting fees from Freenome and Medtronic. Dr. Ahmad reports receiving speaker fees from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology/Medtronic.

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

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, also known as liso-cel (Breyanzi), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the second-line treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL).

This expanded indication is based on findings from the pivotal phase 3 TRANSFORM study, which showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy over salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplant. The latter course of treatment had been the standard of care for more than 2 decades.

Data from the global, randomized, multicenter TRANSFORM study, as reported in December 2021 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that second-line treatment with liso-cel in 92 patients with r/r LBCL within 12 months after first-line therapy, compared with 92 patient who received standard of care therapy, was associated with highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (10.1 vs. 2.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.349), complete response rate (66% vs. 39%), and progression-free survival (14.8 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.406).

A positive trend in overall survival was also observed (HR, 0.509 at median follow-up of 6.2 months). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the second-line setting.

Liso-cel was initially approved in February 2021 for the treatment of adults with LBCL, including diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B, who have:

• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant because of comorbidities or age.

Liso-cel is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.

In February 2022, the FDA granted Priority Review status for a Bristol-Myers Squibb supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA), based on the TRANSFORM study data, to expand the indication to include use after the failure of first-line therapy.

The agent “now has the potential to be a new standard of care for patients after failure of first-line therapy, offering significantly improved outcomes beyond the current mainstay of care,” Anne Kerber, the BMS senior vice president of cell therapy development, said in a press release at that time.

The European Medicines Agency has also validated a type II variation application for extension of the indication for liso-cel in this setting. Validation of the application “confirms the submission is complete and begins the EMA’s centralized review procedure,” BMS announced in a June 20, 2022, press release.

Liso-cel, which has been available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, includes a boxed warning regarding the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicities.

The warning states that liso-cel should not be administered to patients with active infection or inflammatory disorders, and that severe or life-threatening CRS should be treated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroids.

Patients should also be monitored for neurologic events after treatment with liso-cel, and supportive care and/or corticosteroids should be administered as needed.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, also known as liso-cel (Breyanzi), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the second-line treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL).

This expanded indication is based on findings from the pivotal phase 3 TRANSFORM study, which showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy over salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplant. The latter course of treatment had been the standard of care for more than 2 decades.

Data from the global, randomized, multicenter TRANSFORM study, as reported in December 2021 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that second-line treatment with liso-cel in 92 patients with r/r LBCL within 12 months after first-line therapy, compared with 92 patient who received standard of care therapy, was associated with highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (10.1 vs. 2.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.349), complete response rate (66% vs. 39%), and progression-free survival (14.8 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.406).

A positive trend in overall survival was also observed (HR, 0.509 at median follow-up of 6.2 months). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the second-line setting.

Liso-cel was initially approved in February 2021 for the treatment of adults with LBCL, including diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B, who have:

• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant because of comorbidities or age.

Liso-cel is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.

In February 2022, the FDA granted Priority Review status for a Bristol-Myers Squibb supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA), based on the TRANSFORM study data, to expand the indication to include use after the failure of first-line therapy.

The agent “now has the potential to be a new standard of care for patients after failure of first-line therapy, offering significantly improved outcomes beyond the current mainstay of care,” Anne Kerber, the BMS senior vice president of cell therapy development, said in a press release at that time.

The European Medicines Agency has also validated a type II variation application for extension of the indication for liso-cel in this setting. Validation of the application “confirms the submission is complete and begins the EMA’s centralized review procedure,” BMS announced in a June 20, 2022, press release.

Liso-cel, which has been available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, includes a boxed warning regarding the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicities.

The warning states that liso-cel should not be administered to patients with active infection or inflammatory disorders, and that severe or life-threatening CRS should be treated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroids.

Patients should also be monitored for neurologic events after treatment with liso-cel, and supportive care and/or corticosteroids should be administered as needed.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel, also known as liso-cel (Breyanzi), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the second-line treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL).

This expanded indication is based on findings from the pivotal phase 3 TRANSFORM study, which showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements with CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy over salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem cell transplant. The latter course of treatment had been the standard of care for more than 2 decades.

Data from the global, randomized, multicenter TRANSFORM study, as reported in December 2021 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that second-line treatment with liso-cel in 92 patients with r/r LBCL within 12 months after first-line therapy, compared with 92 patient who received standard of care therapy, was associated with highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in event-free survival (10.1 vs. 2.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.349), complete response rate (66% vs. 39%), and progression-free survival (14.8 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.406).

A positive trend in overall survival was also observed (HR, 0.509 at median follow-up of 6.2 months). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the second-line setting.

Liso-cel was initially approved in February 2021 for the treatment of adults with LBCL, including diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B, who have:

• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy.
• Refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant because of comorbidities or age.

Liso-cel is not indicated for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma.

In February 2022, the FDA granted Priority Review status for a Bristol-Myers Squibb supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA), based on the TRANSFORM study data, to expand the indication to include use after the failure of first-line therapy.

The agent “now has the potential to be a new standard of care for patients after failure of first-line therapy, offering significantly improved outcomes beyond the current mainstay of care,” Anne Kerber, the BMS senior vice president of cell therapy development, said in a press release at that time.

The European Medicines Agency has also validated a type II variation application for extension of the indication for liso-cel in this setting. Validation of the application “confirms the submission is complete and begins the EMA’s centralized review procedure,” BMS announced in a June 20, 2022, press release.

Liso-cel, which has been available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, includes a boxed warning regarding the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicities.

The warning states that liso-cel should not be administered to patients with active infection or inflammatory disorders, and that severe or life-threatening CRS should be treated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroids.

Patients should also be monitored for neurologic events after treatment with liso-cel, and supportive care and/or corticosteroids should be administered as needed.

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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