User login
-
Should Cancer Trial Eligibility Become More Inclusive?
The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.
“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”
Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.
In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.
In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.
Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing.
The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers.
Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.
A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.
The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).
“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.
The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.
So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.
Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.
Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”
However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.
“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”
Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.
“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”
Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.
In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.
In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.
Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing.
The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers.
Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.
A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.
The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).
“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.
The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.
So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.
Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.
Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”
However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.
“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”
Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.
“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”
Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.
In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.
In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.
Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing.
The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers.
Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.
A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.
The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).
“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.
The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.
So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.
Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.
Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”
However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.
“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”
Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Weight Loss Drugs Cut Cancer Risk in Diabetes Patients
Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage:
That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.
For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.
The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.
Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.
But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.
While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage:
That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.
For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.
The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.
Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.
But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.
While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Recent research on popular weight loss drugs has uncovered surprising benefits beyond their intended use, like lowering the risk of fatal heart attacks. And now there may be another unforeseen advantage:
That’s according to a study published July 5 in JAMA Network Open where researchers studied glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists (known as GLP-1RAs), a class of drugs used to treat diabetes and obesity. Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound, which have become well-known recently because they are linked to rapid weight loss, contain GLP-1RAs.
For the study, they looked at electronic health records of 1.7 million patients who had type 2 diabetes, no prior diagnosis of obesity-related cancers, and had been prescribed GLP-1RAs, insulins, or metformin from March 2005 to November 2018.
The scientists found that compared to patients who took insulin, people who took GLP-1RAs had a “significant risk reduction” in 10 of 13 obesity-related cancers. Those 10 cancers were esophageal, colorectal, endometrial, gallbladder, kidney, liver, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma.
Compared with patients taking insulin, patients taking GLP-1RAs showed no statistically significant reduction in stomach cancer and no reduced risk of breast and thyroid cancers, the study said.
But the study found no decrease in cancer risk with GLP-1RAs compared with metformin.
While the study results suggest that these drugs may reduce the risk of certain obesity-related cancers better than insulins, more research is needed, they said.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Feds May End Hospital System’s Noncompete Contract for Part-Time Docs
Mount Sinai Health System in New York City is forcing part-time physicians to sign employment contracts that violate their labor rights, according to a June 2024 complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The complaint stems from no-poaching and confidentiality clauses in the agreements required as a condition of employment, NLRB officials alleged.
according to a copy of the terms included in NLRB’s June 18 complaint.
By requiring the agreements, NLRB officials claimed, Mount Sinai is “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The health system’s “unfair labor practices” affects commerce as outlined under the law, according to the NLRB. The Act bans employers from burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.
Mount Sinai did not respond to requests for comment.
The NLRB’s complaint follows a landmark decision by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. In April 2024, the FTC voted to prohibit noncompetes indefinitely in an effort to protect workers.
“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”
Business groups and agencies have since sued to challenge against the ban, including the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber and other business groups argue that noncompete agreements are important for companies to protect trade secrets, shield recruiting investments, and hide confidential information. The lawsuits are ongoing.
A Physician Blows the Whistle
An anonymous physician first alerted the NLRB to the contract language in November 2023. The doctor was required the sign the hospital system’s agreement for part-time physicians. The complaint does not say if the employee is still employed by the hospital system.
To remedy the unfair labor practices alleged, the NLRB seeks an order requiring the health system to rescind the contract language, stop any actions against current or former employees to enforce the provisions, and make whole any employees who suffered financial losses related to the contract terms.
The allegation against Mount Sinai is among a rising number of grievances filed with the NLRB that claim unfair labor practices. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2024, unfair labor practice charges filed across the NLRB’s field offices increased 7% — from 9612 in 2023 to 10,278 in 2024, according to a news release.
NLRB, meanwhile has been cracking down on anticompetitive labor practices and confidentiality provisions that prevent employees from speaking out.
In a February 2023 decision for instance, NLRB ruled that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by offering severance agreements to workers that include restrictive confidentiality and nondisparagement terms. In 2022, the NLRB and the Federal Trade Commission forged a partnership to more widely combat unfair, anticompetitive, and deceptive business practices.
“Noncompete provisions reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a 2023 release.
Ms. Abruzzo stressed in a memo that NLR Act is committed to an interagency approach to restrictions on the exercise of employee rights, “including limits to workers’ job mobility, information sharing, and referrals to other agencies.”
Mount Sinai Health System must respond to the NLRB’s complaint by July 16, and an administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on September 24.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mount Sinai Health System in New York City is forcing part-time physicians to sign employment contracts that violate their labor rights, according to a June 2024 complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The complaint stems from no-poaching and confidentiality clauses in the agreements required as a condition of employment, NLRB officials alleged.
according to a copy of the terms included in NLRB’s June 18 complaint.
By requiring the agreements, NLRB officials claimed, Mount Sinai is “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The health system’s “unfair labor practices” affects commerce as outlined under the law, according to the NLRB. The Act bans employers from burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.
Mount Sinai did not respond to requests for comment.
The NLRB’s complaint follows a landmark decision by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. In April 2024, the FTC voted to prohibit noncompetes indefinitely in an effort to protect workers.
“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”
Business groups and agencies have since sued to challenge against the ban, including the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber and other business groups argue that noncompete agreements are important for companies to protect trade secrets, shield recruiting investments, and hide confidential information. The lawsuits are ongoing.
A Physician Blows the Whistle
An anonymous physician first alerted the NLRB to the contract language in November 2023. The doctor was required the sign the hospital system’s agreement for part-time physicians. The complaint does not say if the employee is still employed by the hospital system.
To remedy the unfair labor practices alleged, the NLRB seeks an order requiring the health system to rescind the contract language, stop any actions against current or former employees to enforce the provisions, and make whole any employees who suffered financial losses related to the contract terms.
The allegation against Mount Sinai is among a rising number of grievances filed with the NLRB that claim unfair labor practices. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2024, unfair labor practice charges filed across the NLRB’s field offices increased 7% — from 9612 in 2023 to 10,278 in 2024, according to a news release.
NLRB, meanwhile has been cracking down on anticompetitive labor practices and confidentiality provisions that prevent employees from speaking out.
In a February 2023 decision for instance, NLRB ruled that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by offering severance agreements to workers that include restrictive confidentiality and nondisparagement terms. In 2022, the NLRB and the Federal Trade Commission forged a partnership to more widely combat unfair, anticompetitive, and deceptive business practices.
“Noncompete provisions reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a 2023 release.
Ms. Abruzzo stressed in a memo that NLR Act is committed to an interagency approach to restrictions on the exercise of employee rights, “including limits to workers’ job mobility, information sharing, and referrals to other agencies.”
Mount Sinai Health System must respond to the NLRB’s complaint by July 16, and an administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on September 24.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mount Sinai Health System in New York City is forcing part-time physicians to sign employment contracts that violate their labor rights, according to a June 2024 complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The complaint stems from no-poaching and confidentiality clauses in the agreements required as a condition of employment, NLRB officials alleged.
according to a copy of the terms included in NLRB’s June 18 complaint.
By requiring the agreements, NLRB officials claimed, Mount Sinai is “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The health system’s “unfair labor practices” affects commerce as outlined under the law, according to the NLRB. The Act bans employers from burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.
Mount Sinai did not respond to requests for comment.
The NLRB’s complaint follows a landmark decision by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban noncompete agreements nationwide. In April 2024, the FTC voted to prohibit noncompetes indefinitely in an effort to protect workers.
“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”
Business groups and agencies have since sued to challenge against the ban, including the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber and other business groups argue that noncompete agreements are important for companies to protect trade secrets, shield recruiting investments, and hide confidential information. The lawsuits are ongoing.
A Physician Blows the Whistle
An anonymous physician first alerted the NLRB to the contract language in November 2023. The doctor was required the sign the hospital system’s agreement for part-time physicians. The complaint does not say if the employee is still employed by the hospital system.
To remedy the unfair labor practices alleged, the NLRB seeks an order requiring the health system to rescind the contract language, stop any actions against current or former employees to enforce the provisions, and make whole any employees who suffered financial losses related to the contract terms.
The allegation against Mount Sinai is among a rising number of grievances filed with the NLRB that claim unfair labor practices. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2024, unfair labor practice charges filed across the NLRB’s field offices increased 7% — from 9612 in 2023 to 10,278 in 2024, according to a news release.
NLRB, meanwhile has been cracking down on anticompetitive labor practices and confidentiality provisions that prevent employees from speaking out.
In a February 2023 decision for instance, NLRB ruled that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by offering severance agreements to workers that include restrictive confidentiality and nondisparagement terms. In 2022, the NLRB and the Federal Trade Commission forged a partnership to more widely combat unfair, anticompetitive, and deceptive business practices.
“Noncompete provisions reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for,” NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said in a 2023 release.
Ms. Abruzzo stressed in a memo that NLR Act is committed to an interagency approach to restrictions on the exercise of employee rights, “including limits to workers’ job mobility, information sharing, and referrals to other agencies.”
Mount Sinai Health System must respond to the NLRB’s complaint by July 16, and an administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on September 24.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Urticaria Linked to Higher Cancer Risk, Study Finds
TOPLINE:
which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
- They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
- Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
- This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.
TAKEAWAY:
- For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
- Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
- After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
- The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
- They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
- Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
- This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.
TAKEAWAY:
- For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
- Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
- After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
- The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
- They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
- Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
- This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.
TAKEAWAY:
- For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
- Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
- After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
- The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Time Warp: Fax Machines Still Common in Oncology Practice. Why?
One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine.
“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”
Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers.
According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found.
Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained.
“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.”
If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.
Or is it?
Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently.
“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”
And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised.
Slower Workflows, Care Concerns
Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum.
Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices.
“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.”
Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said.
Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.
“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.
“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”
Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened.
As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added.
“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.”
Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients.
Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend.
“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said.
Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said.
“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”
Broader Health Policy Impacts
The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say.
Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.
Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.
Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always.
“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said.
Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said.
“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”
But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”
Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said.
Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.
“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’”
Slow, but Steady, Improvements
Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.
Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.
According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data.
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.
Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape.
Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care.
EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said.
“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”
Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology.
But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.”
“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine.
“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”
Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers.
According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found.
Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained.
“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.”
If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.
Or is it?
Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently.
“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”
And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised.
Slower Workflows, Care Concerns
Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum.
Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices.
“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.”
Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said.
Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.
“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.
“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”
Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened.
As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added.
“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.”
Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients.
Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend.
“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said.
Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said.
“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”
Broader Health Policy Impacts
The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say.
Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.
Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.
Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always.
“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said.
Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said.
“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”
But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”
Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said.
Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.
“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’”
Slow, but Steady, Improvements
Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.
Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.
According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data.
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.
Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape.
Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care.
EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said.
“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”
Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology.
But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.”
“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine.
“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”
Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers.
According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found.
Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained.
“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.”
If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.
Or is it?
Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently.
“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”
And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised.
Slower Workflows, Care Concerns
Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum.
Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices.
“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.”
Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said.
Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.
“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.
“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”
Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened.
As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added.
“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.”
Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients.
Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend.
“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said.
Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said.
“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”
Broader Health Policy Impacts
The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say.
Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.
Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.
Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always.
“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said.
Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said.
“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”
But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”
Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said.
Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.
“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’”
Slow, but Steady, Improvements
Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.
Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.
According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data.
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.
Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape.
Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care.
EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said.
“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”
Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology.
But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.”
“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer Drug Shortages Continue in the US, Survey Finds
Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.
“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.
The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.
“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.
However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.
“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.
In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.
Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).
In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.
In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.
Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.
How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?
Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.
“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.
Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.
The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.
“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.
“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.
The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.
“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.
However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.
“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.
In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.
Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).
In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.
In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.
Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.
How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?
Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.
“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.
Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.
The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.
“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.
“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.
The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.
“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.
However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.
“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.
In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.
Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).
In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.
In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.
Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.
How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?
Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.
“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.
Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.
The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.
“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Tools for Monitoring Multiple Myeloma
Advances in drugs and combinations have revolutionized the landscape in multiple myeloma, thus allowing patients to live much longer, according to Bruno Paiva, PhD, director of flow cytometry and the myeloma laboratory at the University of Navarra Clinic in Pamplona, Spain.
“Much better treatment responses are achieved, with long-term remission, so tools are needed for long-term monitoring. The starting point for monitoring is the monoclonal protein secreted by the myeloma tumor cell, which can be measured in serum and urine. Complete remission is defined when that monoclonal component is not detected with routine laboratory techniques, such as immunofixation,” said Dr. Paiva.
Even if the patient may be in complete remission, minimal residual disease is sometimes detected as myeloma can infiltrate the bone marrow. Techniques for identifying minimal residual disease, like cytometry or next-generation sequencing, can detect bone marrow blood aspirate. “The detection of this minimal residual disease corresponds with a significant reduction in survival,” Dr. Paiva warned.
In addition to these techniques, PET-CT is also used. This imaging tool is “very useful for seeing disease both inside and outside the marrow,” said Dr. Paiva.
“As for the future, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has just approved the use of minimal residual disease as one of the trial objectives. This may allow drugs to reach patients much sooner, instead of waiting for survival data, which takes much longer to obtain,” he said.
Researchers are also learning how to use minimal residual disease and these imaging techniques to individualize the treatment of patients with myeloma. “Furthermore, since some of these techniques are invasive, such as bone marrow ones, we are trying to focus on peripheral blood. This way, monitoring is minimally invasive, much more comfortable for the patient, and more informative because it can be done many times,” said Dr. Paiva.
Dr. Paiva is extending these imaging techniques “to different scenarios, such as the precursor stages of the disease. Our laboratory is especially known for flow cytometry, and we are launching the NoMoreMGUS project, the largest ever conducted in Spain (and perhaps in Europe) on monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. This is a condition that precedes myeloma. We are looking to study 5000 patients in Spain once a year for 5 years, which means analyzing 25,000 samples.
“On the other hand,” he continued, “we are taking some of these developments to other neoplasms, such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia. And we are interested in using all the potential of cytometry not only to measure tumor cells but also to characterize the immune system as another important biomarker in the pathogenesis of the disease. And, for example, to predict infections, which is very important in patients with myeloma.”
This story was translated from El Médico Interactivo, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Advances in drugs and combinations have revolutionized the landscape in multiple myeloma, thus allowing patients to live much longer, according to Bruno Paiva, PhD, director of flow cytometry and the myeloma laboratory at the University of Navarra Clinic in Pamplona, Spain.
“Much better treatment responses are achieved, with long-term remission, so tools are needed for long-term monitoring. The starting point for monitoring is the monoclonal protein secreted by the myeloma tumor cell, which can be measured in serum and urine. Complete remission is defined when that monoclonal component is not detected with routine laboratory techniques, such as immunofixation,” said Dr. Paiva.
Even if the patient may be in complete remission, minimal residual disease is sometimes detected as myeloma can infiltrate the bone marrow. Techniques for identifying minimal residual disease, like cytometry or next-generation sequencing, can detect bone marrow blood aspirate. “The detection of this minimal residual disease corresponds with a significant reduction in survival,” Dr. Paiva warned.
In addition to these techniques, PET-CT is also used. This imaging tool is “very useful for seeing disease both inside and outside the marrow,” said Dr. Paiva.
“As for the future, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has just approved the use of minimal residual disease as one of the trial objectives. This may allow drugs to reach patients much sooner, instead of waiting for survival data, which takes much longer to obtain,” he said.
Researchers are also learning how to use minimal residual disease and these imaging techniques to individualize the treatment of patients with myeloma. “Furthermore, since some of these techniques are invasive, such as bone marrow ones, we are trying to focus on peripheral blood. This way, monitoring is minimally invasive, much more comfortable for the patient, and more informative because it can be done many times,” said Dr. Paiva.
Dr. Paiva is extending these imaging techniques “to different scenarios, such as the precursor stages of the disease. Our laboratory is especially known for flow cytometry, and we are launching the NoMoreMGUS project, the largest ever conducted in Spain (and perhaps in Europe) on monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. This is a condition that precedes myeloma. We are looking to study 5000 patients in Spain once a year for 5 years, which means analyzing 25,000 samples.
“On the other hand,” he continued, “we are taking some of these developments to other neoplasms, such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia. And we are interested in using all the potential of cytometry not only to measure tumor cells but also to characterize the immune system as another important biomarker in the pathogenesis of the disease. And, for example, to predict infections, which is very important in patients with myeloma.”
This story was translated from El Médico Interactivo, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Advances in drugs and combinations have revolutionized the landscape in multiple myeloma, thus allowing patients to live much longer, according to Bruno Paiva, PhD, director of flow cytometry and the myeloma laboratory at the University of Navarra Clinic in Pamplona, Spain.
“Much better treatment responses are achieved, with long-term remission, so tools are needed for long-term monitoring. The starting point for monitoring is the monoclonal protein secreted by the myeloma tumor cell, which can be measured in serum and urine. Complete remission is defined when that monoclonal component is not detected with routine laboratory techniques, such as immunofixation,” said Dr. Paiva.
Even if the patient may be in complete remission, minimal residual disease is sometimes detected as myeloma can infiltrate the bone marrow. Techniques for identifying minimal residual disease, like cytometry or next-generation sequencing, can detect bone marrow blood aspirate. “The detection of this minimal residual disease corresponds with a significant reduction in survival,” Dr. Paiva warned.
In addition to these techniques, PET-CT is also used. This imaging tool is “very useful for seeing disease both inside and outside the marrow,” said Dr. Paiva.
“As for the future, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has just approved the use of minimal residual disease as one of the trial objectives. This may allow drugs to reach patients much sooner, instead of waiting for survival data, which takes much longer to obtain,” he said.
Researchers are also learning how to use minimal residual disease and these imaging techniques to individualize the treatment of patients with myeloma. “Furthermore, since some of these techniques are invasive, such as bone marrow ones, we are trying to focus on peripheral blood. This way, monitoring is minimally invasive, much more comfortable for the patient, and more informative because it can be done many times,” said Dr. Paiva.
Dr. Paiva is extending these imaging techniques “to different scenarios, such as the precursor stages of the disease. Our laboratory is especially known for flow cytometry, and we are launching the NoMoreMGUS project, the largest ever conducted in Spain (and perhaps in Europe) on monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. This is a condition that precedes myeloma. We are looking to study 5000 patients in Spain once a year for 5 years, which means analyzing 25,000 samples.
“On the other hand,” he continued, “we are taking some of these developments to other neoplasms, such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia. And we are interested in using all the potential of cytometry not only to measure tumor cells but also to characterize the immune system as another important biomarker in the pathogenesis of the disease. And, for example, to predict infections, which is very important in patients with myeloma.”
This story was translated from El Médico Interactivo, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
EMA Greenlights Four Drugs for Bladder and Other Cancers
Balversa
The CHMP endorsed the approval of Balversa (erdafitinib, Janssen-Cilag International N.V.), intended for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma, a type of cancer affecting the bladder and urinary system.
As a monotherapy, Balversa is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations. These patients must have previously received at least one line of therapy containing a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor in the unresectable or metastatic treatment setting.
Urothelial carcinoma is the most common form of bladder cancer, the ninth most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide. In 2022, there were approximately 614,000 new cases of bladder cancer and 220,000 deaths globally.
The highest incidence rates in both men and women are found in Southern Europe. Greece had 5800 new cases and 1537 deaths in 2018. Spain has the highest incidence rate in men globally. Since the 1990s, bladder cancer incidence trends have diverged by sex, with rates decreasing or stabilizing in men but increasing among women in certain European countries.
The CHMP recommendation is based on data from cohort 1 of the phase 3 THOR trial, which compared erdafitinib with standard-of-care chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of docetaxel or vinflunine). Cohort 1 included 266 adults with advanced urothelial cancer harboring selected FGFR3 alterations.
All patients had disease progression after one or two prior treatments, at least one of which included a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. The major efficacy endpoints were overall survival, progression free survival, and objective response rate (ORR).
Treatment with erdafitinib reduced the risk for death by 36% compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .005). Median overall survival was 12.1 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 7.8 months in the chemotherapy arm. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 2.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.58; P = .0002). ORR was 35.3% with erdafitinib compared with 8.5% with chemotherapy.
Balversa will be available as 3-mg, 4-mg, and 5-mg film-coated tablets. Erdafitinib, the active substance in Balversa, is an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that suppresses fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinases. Deregulation of FGFR3 signaling is implicated in the pathogenesis of urothelial cancer, and FGFR inhibition has demonstrated antitumor activity in FGFR-expressing cells.
Ordspono
The committee adopted a positive opinion for Ordspono (odronextamab, Regeneron Ireland Designated Activity Company), indicated as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with:
- Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
- Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (rrDLBCL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
The approval recommendation is based on phase 2 trials (NCT02290951, NCT03888105), which demonstrated high ORRs in patients with rrFL and rrDLBCL.
In the DLBCL cohort, a 49% ORR was achieved in heavily pretreated patients who had not received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. A total of 31% achieved a complete response.
The FL cohort showed an 82% response rate in patients with grades I-IIIA disease, with 75% of the overall population achieving a complete response.
Ordspono will be available as a 2-mg, 80-mg, and 320-mg concentrate for solution for infusion. The active substance of Ordspono is odronextamab, a bispecific antibody that targets CD20-expressing B cells and CD3-expressing T cells. By binding to both, it induces T-cell activation and generates a polyclonal cytotoxic T-cell response, leading to the lysis of malignant B cells.
Generics
The panel also adopted positive opinions for two generic cancer medicines.
Enzalutamide Viatris (enzalutamide) is indicated for the treatment of adult men with prostate cancer in several scenarios:
- As monotherapy or with androgen-deprivation therapy for high-risk biochemical recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in men unsuitable for salvage-radiotherapy.
- In combination with androgen-deprivation therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
- For high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
- For metastatic CRPC in men who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic after failure of androgen-deprivation therapy, where chemotherapy is not yet indicated.
- For metastatic CRPC in men whose disease has progressed on or after docetaxel therapy.
Enzalutamide Viatris is a generic version of Xtandi, authorized in the European Union since June 2013. Studies have confirmed the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Enzalutamide Viatris to Xtandi.
Enzalutamide Viatris will be available as 40-mg and 80-mg film-coated tablets. The active substance of Enzalutamide Viatris is enzalutamide, a hormone antagonist that blocks multiple steps in the androgen receptor–signaling pathway.
Nilotinib Accord (nilotinib) is indicated for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).
It is used in adult and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed CML in the chronic phase, adult patients with chronic phase and accelerated phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib, and pediatric patients with CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib.
Nilotinib Accord is a generic of Tasigna, authorized in the European Union since November 2007. Studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Nilotinib Accord to Tasigna.
Nilotinib Accord will be available as 50-mg, 150-mg, and 200-mg hard capsules. The active substance of Nilotinib Accord is nilotinib, an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that targets BCR-ABL kinase and other oncogenic kinases.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Balversa
The CHMP endorsed the approval of Balversa (erdafitinib, Janssen-Cilag International N.V.), intended for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma, a type of cancer affecting the bladder and urinary system.
As a monotherapy, Balversa is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations. These patients must have previously received at least one line of therapy containing a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor in the unresectable or metastatic treatment setting.
Urothelial carcinoma is the most common form of bladder cancer, the ninth most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide. In 2022, there were approximately 614,000 new cases of bladder cancer and 220,000 deaths globally.
The highest incidence rates in both men and women are found in Southern Europe. Greece had 5800 new cases and 1537 deaths in 2018. Spain has the highest incidence rate in men globally. Since the 1990s, bladder cancer incidence trends have diverged by sex, with rates decreasing or stabilizing in men but increasing among women in certain European countries.
The CHMP recommendation is based on data from cohort 1 of the phase 3 THOR trial, which compared erdafitinib with standard-of-care chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of docetaxel or vinflunine). Cohort 1 included 266 adults with advanced urothelial cancer harboring selected FGFR3 alterations.
All patients had disease progression after one or two prior treatments, at least one of which included a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. The major efficacy endpoints were overall survival, progression free survival, and objective response rate (ORR).
Treatment with erdafitinib reduced the risk for death by 36% compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .005). Median overall survival was 12.1 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 7.8 months in the chemotherapy arm. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 2.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.58; P = .0002). ORR was 35.3% with erdafitinib compared with 8.5% with chemotherapy.
Balversa will be available as 3-mg, 4-mg, and 5-mg film-coated tablets. Erdafitinib, the active substance in Balversa, is an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that suppresses fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinases. Deregulation of FGFR3 signaling is implicated in the pathogenesis of urothelial cancer, and FGFR inhibition has demonstrated antitumor activity in FGFR-expressing cells.
Ordspono
The committee adopted a positive opinion for Ordspono (odronextamab, Regeneron Ireland Designated Activity Company), indicated as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with:
- Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
- Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (rrDLBCL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
The approval recommendation is based on phase 2 trials (NCT02290951, NCT03888105), which demonstrated high ORRs in patients with rrFL and rrDLBCL.
In the DLBCL cohort, a 49% ORR was achieved in heavily pretreated patients who had not received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. A total of 31% achieved a complete response.
The FL cohort showed an 82% response rate in patients with grades I-IIIA disease, with 75% of the overall population achieving a complete response.
Ordspono will be available as a 2-mg, 80-mg, and 320-mg concentrate for solution for infusion. The active substance of Ordspono is odronextamab, a bispecific antibody that targets CD20-expressing B cells and CD3-expressing T cells. By binding to both, it induces T-cell activation and generates a polyclonal cytotoxic T-cell response, leading to the lysis of malignant B cells.
Generics
The panel also adopted positive opinions for two generic cancer medicines.
Enzalutamide Viatris (enzalutamide) is indicated for the treatment of adult men with prostate cancer in several scenarios:
- As monotherapy or with androgen-deprivation therapy for high-risk biochemical recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in men unsuitable for salvage-radiotherapy.
- In combination with androgen-deprivation therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
- For high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
- For metastatic CRPC in men who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic after failure of androgen-deprivation therapy, where chemotherapy is not yet indicated.
- For metastatic CRPC in men whose disease has progressed on or after docetaxel therapy.
Enzalutamide Viatris is a generic version of Xtandi, authorized in the European Union since June 2013. Studies have confirmed the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Enzalutamide Viatris to Xtandi.
Enzalutamide Viatris will be available as 40-mg and 80-mg film-coated tablets. The active substance of Enzalutamide Viatris is enzalutamide, a hormone antagonist that blocks multiple steps in the androgen receptor–signaling pathway.
Nilotinib Accord (nilotinib) is indicated for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).
It is used in adult and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed CML in the chronic phase, adult patients with chronic phase and accelerated phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib, and pediatric patients with CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib.
Nilotinib Accord is a generic of Tasigna, authorized in the European Union since November 2007. Studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Nilotinib Accord to Tasigna.
Nilotinib Accord will be available as 50-mg, 150-mg, and 200-mg hard capsules. The active substance of Nilotinib Accord is nilotinib, an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that targets BCR-ABL kinase and other oncogenic kinases.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Balversa
The CHMP endorsed the approval of Balversa (erdafitinib, Janssen-Cilag International N.V.), intended for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma, a type of cancer affecting the bladder and urinary system.
As a monotherapy, Balversa is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations. These patients must have previously received at least one line of therapy containing a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor in the unresectable or metastatic treatment setting.
Urothelial carcinoma is the most common form of bladder cancer, the ninth most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide. In 2022, there were approximately 614,000 new cases of bladder cancer and 220,000 deaths globally.
The highest incidence rates in both men and women are found in Southern Europe. Greece had 5800 new cases and 1537 deaths in 2018. Spain has the highest incidence rate in men globally. Since the 1990s, bladder cancer incidence trends have diverged by sex, with rates decreasing or stabilizing in men but increasing among women in certain European countries.
The CHMP recommendation is based on data from cohort 1 of the phase 3 THOR trial, which compared erdafitinib with standard-of-care chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of docetaxel or vinflunine). Cohort 1 included 266 adults with advanced urothelial cancer harboring selected FGFR3 alterations.
All patients had disease progression after one or two prior treatments, at least one of which included a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. The major efficacy endpoints were overall survival, progression free survival, and objective response rate (ORR).
Treatment with erdafitinib reduced the risk for death by 36% compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; P = .005). Median overall survival was 12.1 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 7.8 months in the chemotherapy arm. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the erdafitinib arm vs 2.7 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 0.58; P = .0002). ORR was 35.3% with erdafitinib compared with 8.5% with chemotherapy.
Balversa will be available as 3-mg, 4-mg, and 5-mg film-coated tablets. Erdafitinib, the active substance in Balversa, is an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that suppresses fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinases. Deregulation of FGFR3 signaling is implicated in the pathogenesis of urothelial cancer, and FGFR inhibition has demonstrated antitumor activity in FGFR-expressing cells.
Ordspono
The committee adopted a positive opinion for Ordspono (odronextamab, Regeneron Ireland Designated Activity Company), indicated as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with:
- Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
- Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (rrDLBCL), after two or more lines of systemic therapy.
The approval recommendation is based on phase 2 trials (NCT02290951, NCT03888105), which demonstrated high ORRs in patients with rrFL and rrDLBCL.
In the DLBCL cohort, a 49% ORR was achieved in heavily pretreated patients who had not received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. A total of 31% achieved a complete response.
The FL cohort showed an 82% response rate in patients with grades I-IIIA disease, with 75% of the overall population achieving a complete response.
Ordspono will be available as a 2-mg, 80-mg, and 320-mg concentrate for solution for infusion. The active substance of Ordspono is odronextamab, a bispecific antibody that targets CD20-expressing B cells and CD3-expressing T cells. By binding to both, it induces T-cell activation and generates a polyclonal cytotoxic T-cell response, leading to the lysis of malignant B cells.
Generics
The panel also adopted positive opinions for two generic cancer medicines.
Enzalutamide Viatris (enzalutamide) is indicated for the treatment of adult men with prostate cancer in several scenarios:
- As monotherapy or with androgen-deprivation therapy for high-risk biochemical recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in men unsuitable for salvage-radiotherapy.
- In combination with androgen-deprivation therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
- For high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
- For metastatic CRPC in men who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic after failure of androgen-deprivation therapy, where chemotherapy is not yet indicated.
- For metastatic CRPC in men whose disease has progressed on or after docetaxel therapy.
Enzalutamide Viatris is a generic version of Xtandi, authorized in the European Union since June 2013. Studies have confirmed the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Enzalutamide Viatris to Xtandi.
Enzalutamide Viatris will be available as 40-mg and 80-mg film-coated tablets. The active substance of Enzalutamide Viatris is enzalutamide, a hormone antagonist that blocks multiple steps in the androgen receptor–signaling pathway.
Nilotinib Accord (nilotinib) is indicated for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).
It is used in adult and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed CML in the chronic phase, adult patients with chronic phase and accelerated phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib, and pediatric patients with CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib.
Nilotinib Accord is a generic of Tasigna, authorized in the European Union since November 2007. Studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality and bioequivalence of Nilotinib Accord to Tasigna.
Nilotinib Accord will be available as 50-mg, 150-mg, and 200-mg hard capsules. The active substance of Nilotinib Accord is nilotinib, an antineoplastic protein kinase inhibitor that targets BCR-ABL kinase and other oncogenic kinases.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ASCO 2024: Treating Myeloma Just Got More Complicated
For brevity’s sake, I’ll focus on trials about newly diagnosed MM and myeloma at first relapse. Here’s my take on how to interpret those studies in light of broader evidence, what I view as their key limitations, and how what came out of ASCO 2024 changes my approach.
The Return of Belantamab
Belantamab, a BCMA targeting antibody-drug conjugate, previously had shown a response rate of 34% in a single-arm, heavily pretreated population, albeit with modest progression free survival (PFS), only to fail its confirmatory randomized study against pomalidomide/dexamethasone. Given the ocular toxicity associated with belantamab, many — including myself — had written off this drug (save in exceptional/unique circumstances), especially with the rise of novel immunotherapies targeting BCMA, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy and bispecific antibodies.
However, this year at ASCO, two key randomized trials were presented with concurrent publications, a trial of belantamab/bortezomib/dexamethasone versus daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone (DVd) (DREAMM-7), and a trial of belantamab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone versus bortezomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone (DREAMM-8). Both trials evaluated patients with myeloma who had relapsed disease and had received at least one prior line of therapy.
In both trials, the belantamab triplet beat the other triplets for the endpoint of PFS (median PFS 36.6 vs 13 months for DREAMM-7, and 12 months PFS 71% vs 51% for DREAMM-8). We must commend the bold three-versus-three design and a convincing result.
What are the caveats? Some censoring of information happened in DREAMM-7, which helped make the intervention arm look better than reality and the control arm look even worse than reality. To illustrate this point: the control arm of DVd (PFS 13 months) underperformed, compared to the CASTOR trial, where DVd led to a PFS of 16.7 months. The drug remains toxic, with high rates of keratopathy and vision problems in its current dosing schema. (Perhaps the future lies in less frequent dosing.) This toxicity is almost always reversible, but it is a huge problem to deal with, and our current quality-of-life instruments fail miserably at capturing this.
Furthermore, DVd is now emerging as perhaps the weakest daratumumab triplet that exists. Almost all patients in this trial had disease sensitivity to lenalidomide, and daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (PFS of 45 months in the POLLUX trial) is unequivocally easier to use and handle (in my opinion) than this belantamab triplet--which is quite literally “an eyesore.” Would belantamab-based triplets beat dara/len/dex for patients with lenalidomide sensitive disease? Or, for that matter, would belantamab combos beat anti-CD38+carfilzomib+dex combinations, or cilta-cel (which is also now approved for first relapse)?
How do I foresee the future of belantamab? Despite these unequivocally positive results, I am not enthused about using it for most patients at first relapse. When trials for bispecifics at first relapse read out, my enthusiasm will likely wane even more. Still, it is useful to have belantamab in the armamentarium. For some patients perceived to be at very high risk of infection, belantamab-based triplets may indeed prove to be a better option than bispecifics. However, I suspect that with better dosing strategies for bispecifics, perhaps even that trend may be mitigated. Since we do not yet have bispecifics available in this line, my suggested algorithm for first relapse is as follows:
Newly Diagnosed MM: The Era of Quads Solidifies
At ASCO 2024, two key trials with concurrent publications assessed the role of quadruplets (without the use of transplant): the IMROZ trial of a quadruplet of isatuximab/bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone versus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd), and the BENEFIT trial (isatuximab/lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone versus isatuximab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone).
The IMROZ trial tested the addition of an anti-CD38 antibody to a triplet backbone, and the results are compelling. The PFS was not reached for the quad vs 54 months for VRd. Unlike in the belantamab trial (where the control arm underperformed), here the control arm really overperformed. In this case, we have never seen such a compelling PFS of 54 months for VRd before. (Based on other trials, VRd PFS has been more in the ballpark of 35-43 months.) This speaks to the fitness and biology of the patients enrolled in this trial, and perhaps to how we will not see such stellar results with this quad recreated in real life.
The addition of isatuximab did not seem to impair quality of life, and although there were more treatment-related deaths with isatuximab, those higher numbers seem to have been driven by longer treatment durations. For this study, the upper age limit was 80 years, and most patients enrolled had an excellent functional status--making it clear that frail patients were greatly underrepresented.
What can we conclude from this study? For fit, older patients (who would have been transplant-eligible in the United States), this study provides excellent proof of concept that very good outcomes can be obtained without the use of transplantation. In treating frail patients, we do not know if quads are safe (or even necessary, compared to gentler sequencing), so these data are not applicable.
High-risk cytogenetics were underrepresented, and although the subgroup analysis for such patients did not show a benefit, it is hard to draw conclusions either way. For me, this trial is further evidence that for many older patients with MM, even if you “can” do a transplant, you probably “shouldn’t, they will experience increasingly better outcomes.
The standard for newly diagnosed MM in older patients for whom transplant is not intended is currently dara/len/dex. Is isa/bort/len/dex better? I do not know. It may give a better PFS, but the addition of bortezomib will lead to more neuropathy: 60% of patients developed neuropathy here, with 7% developing Grade III/IV peripheral neuropathy.
To resolve this issue, highly individualized discussions with patients will be needed. The BENEFIT trial evaluated this question more directly, with a randomized comparison of Isa-VRd versus Isa-Rd (the role of bortezomib being the main variable assessed here) with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity at 10-5 at 18 months. Although MRD negativity allows for a quick read-out, having MRD as an endpoint is a foregone conclusion. Adding another drug will almost certainly lead to deeper responses. But is it worth it?
In the BENEFIT trial, the MRD negativity at 10-5 was 26% versus 53% with the quad. However, peripheral neuropathy rates were much higher with the quad (28% vs 52%). Without longer-term data such as PFS and OS, I do not know whether it is worth the extra risks of neuropathy for older patients. Their priority may not be eradication of cancer cells at all costs. Instead, it may be better quality of life and functioning while preserving survival.
To sum up: Post-ASCO 2024, the approach to newly diagnosed MM just got a lot more complicated. For fit, older patients willing to endure extra toxicities of neuropathy (and acknowledging that we do not know whether survival will be any better with this approach), a quad is a very reasonable option to offer while forgoing transplant, in resource-rich areas of the world, such as the United States. Omitting a transplant now seems very reasonable for most older adults. However, a nuanced and individualized approach remains paramount. And given the speed of new developments, even this suggested approach will be outdated soon!
Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
For brevity’s sake, I’ll focus on trials about newly diagnosed MM and myeloma at first relapse. Here’s my take on how to interpret those studies in light of broader evidence, what I view as their key limitations, and how what came out of ASCO 2024 changes my approach.
The Return of Belantamab
Belantamab, a BCMA targeting antibody-drug conjugate, previously had shown a response rate of 34% in a single-arm, heavily pretreated population, albeit with modest progression free survival (PFS), only to fail its confirmatory randomized study against pomalidomide/dexamethasone. Given the ocular toxicity associated with belantamab, many — including myself — had written off this drug (save in exceptional/unique circumstances), especially with the rise of novel immunotherapies targeting BCMA, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy and bispecific antibodies.
However, this year at ASCO, two key randomized trials were presented with concurrent publications, a trial of belantamab/bortezomib/dexamethasone versus daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone (DVd) (DREAMM-7), and a trial of belantamab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone versus bortezomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone (DREAMM-8). Both trials evaluated patients with myeloma who had relapsed disease and had received at least one prior line of therapy.
In both trials, the belantamab triplet beat the other triplets for the endpoint of PFS (median PFS 36.6 vs 13 months for DREAMM-7, and 12 months PFS 71% vs 51% for DREAMM-8). We must commend the bold three-versus-three design and a convincing result.
What are the caveats? Some censoring of information happened in DREAMM-7, which helped make the intervention arm look better than reality and the control arm look even worse than reality. To illustrate this point: the control arm of DVd (PFS 13 months) underperformed, compared to the CASTOR trial, where DVd led to a PFS of 16.7 months. The drug remains toxic, with high rates of keratopathy and vision problems in its current dosing schema. (Perhaps the future lies in less frequent dosing.) This toxicity is almost always reversible, but it is a huge problem to deal with, and our current quality-of-life instruments fail miserably at capturing this.
Furthermore, DVd is now emerging as perhaps the weakest daratumumab triplet that exists. Almost all patients in this trial had disease sensitivity to lenalidomide, and daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (PFS of 45 months in the POLLUX trial) is unequivocally easier to use and handle (in my opinion) than this belantamab triplet--which is quite literally “an eyesore.” Would belantamab-based triplets beat dara/len/dex for patients with lenalidomide sensitive disease? Or, for that matter, would belantamab combos beat anti-CD38+carfilzomib+dex combinations, or cilta-cel (which is also now approved for first relapse)?
How do I foresee the future of belantamab? Despite these unequivocally positive results, I am not enthused about using it for most patients at first relapse. When trials for bispecifics at first relapse read out, my enthusiasm will likely wane even more. Still, it is useful to have belantamab in the armamentarium. For some patients perceived to be at very high risk of infection, belantamab-based triplets may indeed prove to be a better option than bispecifics. However, I suspect that with better dosing strategies for bispecifics, perhaps even that trend may be mitigated. Since we do not yet have bispecifics available in this line, my suggested algorithm for first relapse is as follows:
Newly Diagnosed MM: The Era of Quads Solidifies
At ASCO 2024, two key trials with concurrent publications assessed the role of quadruplets (without the use of transplant): the IMROZ trial of a quadruplet of isatuximab/bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone versus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd), and the BENEFIT trial (isatuximab/lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone versus isatuximab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone).
The IMROZ trial tested the addition of an anti-CD38 antibody to a triplet backbone, and the results are compelling. The PFS was not reached for the quad vs 54 months for VRd. Unlike in the belantamab trial (where the control arm underperformed), here the control arm really overperformed. In this case, we have never seen such a compelling PFS of 54 months for VRd before. (Based on other trials, VRd PFS has been more in the ballpark of 35-43 months.) This speaks to the fitness and biology of the patients enrolled in this trial, and perhaps to how we will not see such stellar results with this quad recreated in real life.
The addition of isatuximab did not seem to impair quality of life, and although there were more treatment-related deaths with isatuximab, those higher numbers seem to have been driven by longer treatment durations. For this study, the upper age limit was 80 years, and most patients enrolled had an excellent functional status--making it clear that frail patients were greatly underrepresented.
What can we conclude from this study? For fit, older patients (who would have been transplant-eligible in the United States), this study provides excellent proof of concept that very good outcomes can be obtained without the use of transplantation. In treating frail patients, we do not know if quads are safe (or even necessary, compared to gentler sequencing), so these data are not applicable.
High-risk cytogenetics were underrepresented, and although the subgroup analysis for such patients did not show a benefit, it is hard to draw conclusions either way. For me, this trial is further evidence that for many older patients with MM, even if you “can” do a transplant, you probably “shouldn’t, they will experience increasingly better outcomes.
The standard for newly diagnosed MM in older patients for whom transplant is not intended is currently dara/len/dex. Is isa/bort/len/dex better? I do not know. It may give a better PFS, but the addition of bortezomib will lead to more neuropathy: 60% of patients developed neuropathy here, with 7% developing Grade III/IV peripheral neuropathy.
To resolve this issue, highly individualized discussions with patients will be needed. The BENEFIT trial evaluated this question more directly, with a randomized comparison of Isa-VRd versus Isa-Rd (the role of bortezomib being the main variable assessed here) with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity at 10-5 at 18 months. Although MRD negativity allows for a quick read-out, having MRD as an endpoint is a foregone conclusion. Adding another drug will almost certainly lead to deeper responses. But is it worth it?
In the BENEFIT trial, the MRD negativity at 10-5 was 26% versus 53% with the quad. However, peripheral neuropathy rates were much higher with the quad (28% vs 52%). Without longer-term data such as PFS and OS, I do not know whether it is worth the extra risks of neuropathy for older patients. Their priority may not be eradication of cancer cells at all costs. Instead, it may be better quality of life and functioning while preserving survival.
To sum up: Post-ASCO 2024, the approach to newly diagnosed MM just got a lot more complicated. For fit, older patients willing to endure extra toxicities of neuropathy (and acknowledging that we do not know whether survival will be any better with this approach), a quad is a very reasonable option to offer while forgoing transplant, in resource-rich areas of the world, such as the United States. Omitting a transplant now seems very reasonable for most older adults. However, a nuanced and individualized approach remains paramount. And given the speed of new developments, even this suggested approach will be outdated soon!
Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
For brevity’s sake, I’ll focus on trials about newly diagnosed MM and myeloma at first relapse. Here’s my take on how to interpret those studies in light of broader evidence, what I view as their key limitations, and how what came out of ASCO 2024 changes my approach.
The Return of Belantamab
Belantamab, a BCMA targeting antibody-drug conjugate, previously had shown a response rate of 34% in a single-arm, heavily pretreated population, albeit with modest progression free survival (PFS), only to fail its confirmatory randomized study against pomalidomide/dexamethasone. Given the ocular toxicity associated with belantamab, many — including myself — had written off this drug (save in exceptional/unique circumstances), especially with the rise of novel immunotherapies targeting BCMA, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy and bispecific antibodies.
However, this year at ASCO, two key randomized trials were presented with concurrent publications, a trial of belantamab/bortezomib/dexamethasone versus daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone (DVd) (DREAMM-7), and a trial of belantamab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone versus bortezomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone (DREAMM-8). Both trials evaluated patients with myeloma who had relapsed disease and had received at least one prior line of therapy.
In both trials, the belantamab triplet beat the other triplets for the endpoint of PFS (median PFS 36.6 vs 13 months for DREAMM-7, and 12 months PFS 71% vs 51% for DREAMM-8). We must commend the bold three-versus-three design and a convincing result.
What are the caveats? Some censoring of information happened in DREAMM-7, which helped make the intervention arm look better than reality and the control arm look even worse than reality. To illustrate this point: the control arm of DVd (PFS 13 months) underperformed, compared to the CASTOR trial, where DVd led to a PFS of 16.7 months. The drug remains toxic, with high rates of keratopathy and vision problems in its current dosing schema. (Perhaps the future lies in less frequent dosing.) This toxicity is almost always reversible, but it is a huge problem to deal with, and our current quality-of-life instruments fail miserably at capturing this.
Furthermore, DVd is now emerging as perhaps the weakest daratumumab triplet that exists. Almost all patients in this trial had disease sensitivity to lenalidomide, and daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (PFS of 45 months in the POLLUX trial) is unequivocally easier to use and handle (in my opinion) than this belantamab triplet--which is quite literally “an eyesore.” Would belantamab-based triplets beat dara/len/dex for patients with lenalidomide sensitive disease? Or, for that matter, would belantamab combos beat anti-CD38+carfilzomib+dex combinations, or cilta-cel (which is also now approved for first relapse)?
How do I foresee the future of belantamab? Despite these unequivocally positive results, I am not enthused about using it for most patients at first relapse. When trials for bispecifics at first relapse read out, my enthusiasm will likely wane even more. Still, it is useful to have belantamab in the armamentarium. For some patients perceived to be at very high risk of infection, belantamab-based triplets may indeed prove to be a better option than bispecifics. However, I suspect that with better dosing strategies for bispecifics, perhaps even that trend may be mitigated. Since we do not yet have bispecifics available in this line, my suggested algorithm for first relapse is as follows:
Newly Diagnosed MM: The Era of Quads Solidifies
At ASCO 2024, two key trials with concurrent publications assessed the role of quadruplets (without the use of transplant): the IMROZ trial of a quadruplet of isatuximab/bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone versus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd), and the BENEFIT trial (isatuximab/lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone versus isatuximab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone).
The IMROZ trial tested the addition of an anti-CD38 antibody to a triplet backbone, and the results are compelling. The PFS was not reached for the quad vs 54 months for VRd. Unlike in the belantamab trial (where the control arm underperformed), here the control arm really overperformed. In this case, we have never seen such a compelling PFS of 54 months for VRd before. (Based on other trials, VRd PFS has been more in the ballpark of 35-43 months.) This speaks to the fitness and biology of the patients enrolled in this trial, and perhaps to how we will not see such stellar results with this quad recreated in real life.
The addition of isatuximab did not seem to impair quality of life, and although there were more treatment-related deaths with isatuximab, those higher numbers seem to have been driven by longer treatment durations. For this study, the upper age limit was 80 years, and most patients enrolled had an excellent functional status--making it clear that frail patients were greatly underrepresented.
What can we conclude from this study? For fit, older patients (who would have been transplant-eligible in the United States), this study provides excellent proof of concept that very good outcomes can be obtained without the use of transplantation. In treating frail patients, we do not know if quads are safe (or even necessary, compared to gentler sequencing), so these data are not applicable.
High-risk cytogenetics were underrepresented, and although the subgroup analysis for such patients did not show a benefit, it is hard to draw conclusions either way. For me, this trial is further evidence that for many older patients with MM, even if you “can” do a transplant, you probably “shouldn’t, they will experience increasingly better outcomes.
The standard for newly diagnosed MM in older patients for whom transplant is not intended is currently dara/len/dex. Is isa/bort/len/dex better? I do not know. It may give a better PFS, but the addition of bortezomib will lead to more neuropathy: 60% of patients developed neuropathy here, with 7% developing Grade III/IV peripheral neuropathy.
To resolve this issue, highly individualized discussions with patients will be needed. The BENEFIT trial evaluated this question more directly, with a randomized comparison of Isa-VRd versus Isa-Rd (the role of bortezomib being the main variable assessed here) with a primary endpoint of MRD negativity at 10-5 at 18 months. Although MRD negativity allows for a quick read-out, having MRD as an endpoint is a foregone conclusion. Adding another drug will almost certainly lead to deeper responses. But is it worth it?
In the BENEFIT trial, the MRD negativity at 10-5 was 26% versus 53% with the quad. However, peripheral neuropathy rates were much higher with the quad (28% vs 52%). Without longer-term data such as PFS and OS, I do not know whether it is worth the extra risks of neuropathy for older patients. Their priority may not be eradication of cancer cells at all costs. Instead, it may be better quality of life and functioning while preserving survival.
To sum up: Post-ASCO 2024, the approach to newly diagnosed MM just got a lot more complicated. For fit, older patients willing to endure extra toxicities of neuropathy (and acknowledging that we do not know whether survival will be any better with this approach), a quad is a very reasonable option to offer while forgoing transplant, in resource-rich areas of the world, such as the United States. Omitting a transplant now seems very reasonable for most older adults. However, a nuanced and individualized approach remains paramount. And given the speed of new developments, even this suggested approach will be outdated soon!
Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
AML: Shorter Venetoclax Course Shows Promise for Some
However, the azacitidine plus venetoclax therapy — the “7+7” regimen — was associated with lower platelet transfusion requirements and lower 8-week mortality, suggesting the regimen might be preferable in certain patient populations, Alexandre Bazinet, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.
The composite complete remission (CRc) rate, including complete remission with or without complete count recovery, was identical at 72% among 82 patients treated with the 7+7 regimen and 166 treated with standard therapy, and the complete remission (CR) rate was 57% and 55%, respectively, Dr. Bazinet said.
The median number of cycles to first response was one in both groups, but 42% of responders in the 7+7 group required more than one cycle to achieve their first response, compared with just 1% of those in the standard therapy group, he noted, adding that the median number of cycles to achieve best response was two in the 7+7 group and one in the standard therapy group.
The mortality rate at 4 weeks was similar in the groups (2% vs 5% for 7+7 vs standard therapy), but at 8 weeks, the mortality rate was significantly higher in the standard therapy group (6% vs 16%, respectively). Median overall survival (OS) was 11.2 months versus 10.3 months, and median 2-year survival was 27.7% versus 33.6% in the groups, respectively.
Event-free survival was 6.5 versus 7.4 months, and 2-year event-free survival was 24.5% versus 27.0%, respectively.
Of note, fewer patients in the 7+7 group required platelet transfusions during cycle 1 (62% vs 77%) and the cycle 1 rates of neutropenic fever and red cell transfusion requirements were similar in the two treatment groups, Dr. Bazinet said.
Study participants were 82 adults from seven centers in France who received the 7+7 regimen, and 166 adults from MD Anderson who received standard therapy with a hypomethylating agent plus venetoclax doublets given for 21-28 days during induction. Preliminary data on the 7+7 regimen in patients from the French centers were reported previously and “suggested preserved efficacy with potentially less toxicity,” he noted.
“A hypomethylating agent plus venetoclax doublets are standard-of-care in patients with AML who are older or ineligible for chemotherapy due to comorbidities,” Dr. Bazinet explained, adding that although the venetoclax label calls for 28 days of drug per cycle, shorter courses of 14 to 21 days are commonly used.
These findings are limited by the retrospective study design and by small patient numbers in many subgroups, he said.
“In addition, the cohorts were heterogeneous, consisting of patients treated with a variety of different regimens and across multiple centers and countries. The distribution of FLT3-ITD and NRAS/KRAS mutations differed significantly between cohorts,” he explained, also noting that prophylactic azole use differed across the cohort. “Furthermore, analysis of the toxicity results was also limited by likely differing transfusion polices in different centers.”
Overall, however, the findings suggest that reducing the duration of venetoclax is safe and results in similar CRc rates, although responses may be faster with standard dosing, he said, adding that “7+7 is potentially less toxic and is attractive in patients who are more frail or at risk for complications.”
“Our data support further study of shorter venetoclax duration, within emerging triplet regimens in patients with intermediate or low predictive benefit to mitigate toxicity,” he concluded.
Dr. Bazinet reported having no disclosures.
However, the azacitidine plus venetoclax therapy — the “7+7” regimen — was associated with lower platelet transfusion requirements and lower 8-week mortality, suggesting the regimen might be preferable in certain patient populations, Alexandre Bazinet, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.
The composite complete remission (CRc) rate, including complete remission with or without complete count recovery, was identical at 72% among 82 patients treated with the 7+7 regimen and 166 treated with standard therapy, and the complete remission (CR) rate was 57% and 55%, respectively, Dr. Bazinet said.
The median number of cycles to first response was one in both groups, but 42% of responders in the 7+7 group required more than one cycle to achieve their first response, compared with just 1% of those in the standard therapy group, he noted, adding that the median number of cycles to achieve best response was two in the 7+7 group and one in the standard therapy group.
The mortality rate at 4 weeks was similar in the groups (2% vs 5% for 7+7 vs standard therapy), but at 8 weeks, the mortality rate was significantly higher in the standard therapy group (6% vs 16%, respectively). Median overall survival (OS) was 11.2 months versus 10.3 months, and median 2-year survival was 27.7% versus 33.6% in the groups, respectively.
Event-free survival was 6.5 versus 7.4 months, and 2-year event-free survival was 24.5% versus 27.0%, respectively.
Of note, fewer patients in the 7+7 group required platelet transfusions during cycle 1 (62% vs 77%) and the cycle 1 rates of neutropenic fever and red cell transfusion requirements were similar in the two treatment groups, Dr. Bazinet said.
Study participants were 82 adults from seven centers in France who received the 7+7 regimen, and 166 adults from MD Anderson who received standard therapy with a hypomethylating agent plus venetoclax doublets given for 21-28 days during induction. Preliminary data on the 7+7 regimen in patients from the French centers were reported previously and “suggested preserved efficacy with potentially less toxicity,” he noted.
“A hypomethylating agent plus venetoclax doublets are standard-of-care in patients with AML who are older or ineligible for chemotherapy due to comorbidities,” Dr. Bazinet explained, adding that although the venetoclax label calls for 28 days of drug per cycle, shorter courses of 14 to 21 days are commonly used.
These findings are limited by the retrospective study design and by small patient numbers in many subgroups, he said.
“In addition, the cohorts were heterogeneous, consisting of patients treated with a variety of different regimens and across multiple centers and countries. The distribution of FLT3-ITD and NRAS/KRAS mutations differed significantly between cohorts,” he explained, also noting that prophylactic azole use differed across the cohort. “Furthermore, analysis of the toxicity results was also limited by likely differing transfusion polices in different centers.”
Overall, however, the findings suggest that reducing the duration of venetoclax is safe and results in similar CRc rates, although responses may be faster with standard dosing, he said, adding that “7+7 is potentially less toxic and is attractive in patients who are more frail or at risk for complications.”
“Our data support further study of shorter venetoclax duration, within emerging triplet regimens in patients with intermediate or low predictive benefit to mitigate toxicity,” he concluded.
Dr. Bazinet reported having no disclosures.
However, the azacitidine plus venetoclax therapy — the “7+7” regimen — was associated with lower platelet transfusion requirements and lower 8-week mortality, suggesting the regimen might be preferable in certain patient populations, Alexandre Bazinet, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.
The composite complete remission (CRc) rate, including complete remission with or without complete count recovery, was identical at 72% among 82 patients treated with the 7+7 regimen and 166 treated with standard therapy, and the complete remission (CR) rate was 57% and 55%, respectively, Dr. Bazinet said.
The median number of cycles to first response was one in both groups, but 42% of responders in the 7+7 group required more than one cycle to achieve their first response, compared with just 1% of those in the standard therapy group, he noted, adding that the median number of cycles to achieve best response was two in the 7+7 group and one in the standard therapy group.
The mortality rate at 4 weeks was similar in the groups (2% vs 5% for 7+7 vs standard therapy), but at 8 weeks, the mortality rate was significantly higher in the standard therapy group (6% vs 16%, respectively). Median overall survival (OS) was 11.2 months versus 10.3 months, and median 2-year survival was 27.7% versus 33.6% in the groups, respectively.
Event-free survival was 6.5 versus 7.4 months, and 2-year event-free survival was 24.5% versus 27.0%, respectively.
Of note, fewer patients in the 7+7 group required platelet transfusions during cycle 1 (62% vs 77%) and the cycle 1 rates of neutropenic fever and red cell transfusion requirements were similar in the two treatment groups, Dr. Bazinet said.
Study participants were 82 adults from seven centers in France who received the 7+7 regimen, and 166 adults from MD Anderson who received standard therapy with a hypomethylating agent plus venetoclax doublets given for 21-28 days during induction. Preliminary data on the 7+7 regimen in patients from the French centers were reported previously and “suggested preserved efficacy with potentially less toxicity,” he noted.
“A hypomethylating agent plus venetoclax doublets are standard-of-care in patients with AML who are older or ineligible for chemotherapy due to comorbidities,” Dr. Bazinet explained, adding that although the venetoclax label calls for 28 days of drug per cycle, shorter courses of 14 to 21 days are commonly used.
These findings are limited by the retrospective study design and by small patient numbers in many subgroups, he said.
“In addition, the cohorts were heterogeneous, consisting of patients treated with a variety of different regimens and across multiple centers and countries. The distribution of FLT3-ITD and NRAS/KRAS mutations differed significantly between cohorts,” he explained, also noting that prophylactic azole use differed across the cohort. “Furthermore, analysis of the toxicity results was also limited by likely differing transfusion polices in different centers.”
Overall, however, the findings suggest that reducing the duration of venetoclax is safe and results in similar CRc rates, although responses may be faster with standard dosing, he said, adding that “7+7 is potentially less toxic and is attractive in patients who are more frail or at risk for complications.”
“Our data support further study of shorter venetoclax duration, within emerging triplet regimens in patients with intermediate or low predictive benefit to mitigate toxicity,” he concluded.
Dr. Bazinet reported having no disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2024