Liam Davenport

Offering adjuvant therapy to patients with stage III melanoma offers no melanoma-specific or overall survival benefit, reveals extended follow-up from the first population-based national study to estimate the impact of the treatment.

Hildur Helgadottir, MD, PhD, presented the new findings at the 22nd European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) Congress 2026 on April 24 and described the lead-up to the latest update on the study.

To investigate the impact of adjuvant treatment in patients with stage III melanoma, researchers initially conducted a study in which they used the Swedish Melanoma Registry (SweMR) to identify a precohort of those treated before the introduction of adjuvant therapy in 2018 and a postcohort of those treated subsequently, following both groups out to 2023, she explained.

The analysis revealed no significant difference in melanoma-specific survival between the two groups, at a hazard ratio of 0.92, nor in overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .60 for both). However, median follow-up differed between the groups, at 69 months vs 39 months for the precohort vs the postcohort.

Helgadottir, who is a senior research specialist at the Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center in Stockholm, Sweden, said that when the earlier results were presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2024, there was some criticism that the follow-up was not long enough and that there was no information on the actual adjuvant treatment received in the postcohort patients.

The researchers therefore extended their study out to 2024 to increase the median follow-up to 60 months vs 92 months in the postcohort group vs the precohort group.

They also focused patient selection on patients aged less than 75 years because exposure to adjuvant therapy in older patients was low and restricted the analysis to sentinel lymph node-positive stage IIIB-D cutaneous melanoma diagnosed between 2016 and 2020. This was because adjuvant exposure in stage IIIA disease was low, and patients with clinically detected stage III melanoma started to receive neoadjuvant therapy from 2022 onward.

The current analysis, which was recently published in the European Journal of Cancer, involved 287 patients in the precohort and 349 in the postcohort, who had a median age of 60.0 years and 61.0 years, respectively, and of whom 62.0% and 60.5%, respectively, were male. The groups were well balanced in terms of baseline disease characteristics.

Helgadottir explained that 73% of patients in the postcohort received some form of adjuvant treatment, with the majority treated with PD-1 inhibitors, and a smaller proportion given B-Raf serine-threonine kinase inhibitors. The main reasons for not giving adjuvant therapy were favorable tumor characteristics and the presence of comorbidities.

Five-year melanoma-specific survival rates in the precohorts and postcohorts were 71.4% vs 73.2%, at a hazard ratio adjusted for age, sex, and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of 1.01 (P = .931). Five-year overall survival rates were 67.3% vs 70.1%, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.96 (P = .791).

Helgadottir showed that there were also no significant survival differences in any of the prespecified subgroups for neither melanoma-specific nor overall survival.

There were, again, no significant differences in survival outcomes between the two patient groups, she reported.

The latest results are similar to those from another study conducted in Netherlands and a Danish analysis, Helgadottir said.

Taken together, and “considering the side effects and the costs, it is possible that we will go back to closely following up our patients and treating only at relapse,” she said, “and optimally, of course, that will be already in the neoadjuvant setting.”

“And of course we will need biomarkers because there could be some patients that really need adjuvant treatment, but we need to identify these patients,” continued Helgadottir. Overall survival results from KEYNOTE-054, which compares pembrolizumab with placebo after resection of high-risk stage III melanoma, are awaited, she continued.

Helgadottir explained that adjuvant treatment for stage III melanoma was approved in Sweden in 2018, with treatments freely available to all Swedish residents.

The SweMR is a population-based national register that has near-complete and detailed data on primary cutaneous melanomas, including nodal status and satellite and in-transit disease, and is linked to the national Cause of Death Registry. Helgadottir noted, however, that the SweMR does not contain any information on relapses or the nature of the oncologic treatment received by patients with melanoma.

Following her presentation, she was challenged by an audience member as to whether, on the basis of her findings, she would go back to following up with patients and treating at relapses.

“Maybe we should do that and believe in our own data, and we do. But still, the gold standard must always be the randomized clinical trial,” Helgadottir responded. “So I think, although that we believe in this data, we also want to see the results of the randomized studies.”

The audience member commented that she can see in the data from her own institution that they treat fewer and fewer patients with melanoma with adjuvant therapy by discussing it more thoroughly and being stricter on who should receive it.

Helgadottir agreed, adding that “based on this experience, we did not introduce it to stage II patients because it’s always harder to go back” once a group of patients has started to receive a treatment.

The research was supported by Regional Cancer Centres in Sweden and with grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, Region Stockholm, and the Cancer Research Funds of Radiumhemmet. Helgadottir declared having relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis.

The trial was supported by SkinVision. The researchers declared having no relevant financial relationships.

This article was previously published by Medscape.

Offering adjuvant therapy to patients with stage III melanoma offers no melanoma-specific or overall survival benefit, reveals extended follow-up from the first population-based national study to estimate the impact of the treatment.

Hildur Helgadottir, MD, PhD, presented the new findings at the 22nd European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) Congress 2026 on April 24 and described the lead-up to the latest update on the study.

To investigate the impact of adjuvant treatment in patients with stage III melanoma, researchers initially conducted a study in which they used the Swedish Melanoma Registry (SweMR) to identify a precohort of those treated before the introduction of adjuvant therapy in 2018 and a postcohort of those treated subsequently, following both groups out to 2023, she explained.

The analysis revealed no significant difference in melanoma-specific survival between the two groups, at a hazard ratio of 0.92, nor in overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .60 for both). However, median follow-up differed between the groups, at 69 months vs 39 months for the precohort vs the postcohort.

Helgadottir, who is a senior research specialist at the Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center in Stockholm, Sweden, said that when the earlier results were presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2024, there was some criticism that the follow-up was not long enough and that there was no information on the actual adjuvant treatment received in the postcohort patients.

The researchers therefore extended their study out to 2024 to increase the median follow-up to 60 months vs 92 months in the postcohort group vs the precohort group.

They also focused patient selection on patients aged less than 75 years because exposure to adjuvant therapy in older patients was low and restricted the analysis to sentinel lymph node-positive stage IIIB-D cutaneous melanoma diagnosed between 2016 and 2020. This was because adjuvant exposure in stage IIIA disease was low, and patients with clinically detected stage III melanoma started to receive neoadjuvant therapy from 2022 onward.

The current analysis, which was recently published in the European Journal of Cancer, involved 287 patients in the precohort and 349 in the postcohort, who had a median age of 60.0 years and 61.0 years, respectively, and of whom 62.0% and 60.5%, respectively, were male. The groups were well balanced in terms of baseline disease characteristics.

Helgadottir explained that 73% of patients in the postcohort received some form of adjuvant treatment, with the majority treated with PD-1 inhibitors, and a smaller proportion given B-Raf serine-threonine kinase inhibitors. The main reasons for not giving adjuvant therapy were favorable tumor characteristics and the presence of comorbidities.

Five-year melanoma-specific survival rates in the precohorts and postcohorts were 71.4% vs 73.2%, at a hazard ratio adjusted for age, sex, and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of 1.01 (P = .931). Five-year overall survival rates were 67.3% vs 70.1%, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.96 (P = .791).

Helgadottir showed that there were also no significant survival differences in any of the prespecified subgroups for neither melanoma-specific nor overall survival.

There were, again, no significant differences in survival outcomes between the two patient groups, she reported.

The latest results are similar to those from another study conducted in Netherlands and a Danish analysis, Helgadottir said.

Taken together, and “considering the side effects and the costs, it is possible that we will go back to closely following up our patients and treating only at relapse,” she said, “and optimally, of course, that will be already in the neoadjuvant setting.”

“And of course we will need biomarkers because there could be some patients that really need adjuvant treatment, but we need to identify these patients,” continued Helgadottir. Overall survival results from KEYNOTE-054, which compares pembrolizumab with placebo after resection of high-risk stage III melanoma, are awaited, she continued.

Helgadottir explained that adjuvant treatment for stage III melanoma was approved in Sweden in 2018, with treatments freely available to all Swedish residents.

The SweMR is a population-based national register that has near-complete and detailed data on primary cutaneous melanomas, including nodal status and satellite and in-transit disease, and is linked to the national Cause of Death Registry. Helgadottir noted, however, that the SweMR does not contain any information on relapses or the nature of the oncologic treatment received by patients with melanoma.

Following her presentation, she was challenged by an audience member as to whether, on the basis of her findings, she would go back to following up with patients and treating at relapses.

“Maybe we should do that and believe in our own data, and we do. But still, the gold standard must always be the randomized clinical trial,” Helgadottir responded. “So I think, although that we believe in this data, we also want to see the results of the randomized studies.”

The audience member commented that she can see in the data from her own institution that they treat fewer and fewer patients with melanoma with adjuvant therapy by discussing it more thoroughly and being stricter on who should receive it.

Helgadottir agreed, adding that “based on this experience, we did not introduce it to stage II patients because it’s always harder to go back” once a group of patients has started to receive a treatment.

The research was supported by Regional Cancer Centres in Sweden and with grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, Region Stockholm, and the Cancer Research Funds of Radiumhemmet. Helgadottir declared having relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis.

The trial was supported by SkinVision. The researchers declared having no relevant financial relationships.

This article was previously published by Medscape.

Offering adjuvant therapy to patients with stage III melanoma offers no melanoma-specific or overall survival benefit, reveals extended follow-up from the first population-based national study to estimate the impact of the treatment.

Hildur Helgadottir, MD, PhD, presented the new findings at the 22nd European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) Congress 2026 on April 24 and described the lead-up to the latest update on the study.

To investigate the impact of adjuvant treatment in patients with stage III melanoma, researchers initially conducted a study in which they used the Swedish Melanoma Registry (SweMR) to identify a precohort of those treated before the introduction of adjuvant therapy in 2018 and a postcohort of those treated subsequently, following both groups out to 2023, she explained.

The analysis revealed no significant difference in melanoma-specific survival between the two groups, at a hazard ratio of 0.92, nor in overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.93 (P = .60 for both). However, median follow-up differed between the groups, at 69 months vs 39 months for the precohort vs the postcohort.

Helgadottir, who is a senior research specialist at the Karolinska Comprehensive Cancer Center in Stockholm, Sweden, said that when the earlier results were presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2024, there was some criticism that the follow-up was not long enough and that there was no information on the actual adjuvant treatment received in the postcohort patients.

The researchers therefore extended their study out to 2024 to increase the median follow-up to 60 months vs 92 months in the postcohort group vs the precohort group.

They also focused patient selection on patients aged less than 75 years because exposure to adjuvant therapy in older patients was low and restricted the analysis to sentinel lymph node-positive stage IIIB-D cutaneous melanoma diagnosed between 2016 and 2020. This was because adjuvant exposure in stage IIIA disease was low, and patients with clinically detected stage III melanoma started to receive neoadjuvant therapy from 2022 onward.

The current analysis, which was recently published in the European Journal of Cancer, involved 287 patients in the precohort and 349 in the postcohort, who had a median age of 60.0 years and 61.0 years, respectively, and of whom 62.0% and 60.5%, respectively, were male. The groups were well balanced in terms of baseline disease characteristics.

Helgadottir explained that 73% of patients in the postcohort received some form of adjuvant treatment, with the majority treated with PD-1 inhibitors, and a smaller proportion given B-Raf serine-threonine kinase inhibitors. The main reasons for not giving adjuvant therapy were favorable tumor characteristics and the presence of comorbidities.

Five-year melanoma-specific survival rates in the precohorts and postcohorts were 71.4% vs 73.2%, at a hazard ratio adjusted for age, sex, and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of 1.01 (P = .931). Five-year overall survival rates were 67.3% vs 70.1%, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.96 (P = .791).

Helgadottir showed that there were also no significant survival differences in any of the prespecified subgroups for neither melanoma-specific nor overall survival.

There were, again, no significant differences in survival outcomes between the two patient groups, she reported.

The latest results are similar to those from another study conducted in Netherlands and a Danish analysis, Helgadottir said.

Taken together, and “considering the side effects and the costs, it is possible that we will go back to closely following up our patients and treating only at relapse,” she said, “and optimally, of course, that will be already in the neoadjuvant setting.”

“And of course we will need biomarkers because there could be some patients that really need adjuvant treatment, but we need to identify these patients,” continued Helgadottir. Overall survival results from KEYNOTE-054, which compares pembrolizumab with placebo after resection of high-risk stage III melanoma, are awaited, she continued.

Helgadottir explained that adjuvant treatment for stage III melanoma was approved in Sweden in 2018, with treatments freely available to all Swedish residents.

The SweMR is a population-based national register that has near-complete and detailed data on primary cutaneous melanomas, including nodal status and satellite and in-transit disease, and is linked to the national Cause of Death Registry. Helgadottir noted, however, that the SweMR does not contain any information on relapses or the nature of the oncologic treatment received by patients with melanoma.

Following her presentation, she was challenged by an audience member as to whether, on the basis of her findings, she would go back to following up with patients and treating at relapses.

“Maybe we should do that and believe in our own data, and we do. But still, the gold standard must always be the randomized clinical trial,” Helgadottir responded. “So I think, although that we believe in this data, we also want to see the results of the randomized studies.”

The audience member commented that she can see in the data from her own institution that they treat fewer and fewer patients with melanoma with adjuvant therapy by discussing it more thoroughly and being stricter on who should receive it.

Helgadottir agreed, adding that “based on this experience, we did not introduce it to stage II patients because it’s always harder to go back” once a group of patients has started to receive a treatment.

The research was supported by Regional Cancer Centres in Sweden and with grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, Region Stockholm, and the Cancer Research Funds of Radiumhemmet. Helgadottir declared having relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis.

The trial was supported by SkinVision. The researchers declared having no relevant financial relationships.

This article was previously published by Medscape.

An AI-based skin assessment app may drive up healthcare visits for benign lesions, with unclear benefits for skin cancer detection, a Dutch clinical trial has found.

The trial, of nearly 20,000 patients in one health insurance plan, found that those given free access to the app were no more likely to be diagnosed with skin cancer over 1 year than participants assigned to a control group with no app access. They were, however, more likely to make healthcare visits for benign skin lesions.

The results came as a surprise, lead researcher Marlies Wakkee, MD, PhD, said during a presentation at the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) Congress 2026, held in Prague, Czech Republic.

“We were a bit flabbergasted,” said Wakkee, of Erasmus MC in Rotterdam, Netherlands. “We were, of course, expecting that those who would use this intervention app would have more skin cancer diagnoses than those who did not.”

She did, however, point to a potential reason for the lack of benefit: A deeper look at the data suggested that participants in the control group might have been particularly motivated to see their doctor for suspicious skin growths.

Can AI Apps Fill a Gap?

Wakkee pointed out that routine skin cancer screening via clinical skin examination is considered infeasible in many countries. Current guidance from the US Preventive Services Task Force says there is insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms from widespread screening.

A plethora of AI-based skin assessment apps have entered the market in recent years, Wakkee said, and in theory, they have the potential to aid in earlier skin cancer diagnosis. But, she added, the technology also comes with potential harms, ranging from spurring healthcare visits for benign lesions to missing true cancers.

The current trial focused on the SkinVision app. It relies on a convolutional neural network to analyze images of skin lesions captured by the user’s smartphone and provides risk assessments of low, medium or high; a tele-dermatology team is available for support.

The app has been reimbursed in Netherlands via health insurance companies since 2019, and by 2021, it was available to 2.2 million insurees, with an uptake of about 1%, according to Wakkee.

In a previous study, the researchers used insurance claims data to study 18,960 app users and compare them with 56,880 nonusers. They found that app use was associated with an increased likelihood of being diagnosed with cutaneous malignancies and premalignancies but also benign tumors and nevi.

“So there’s a group in there that just is very worried about their skin,” Wakkee said.

To investigate further, her team conducted the SPOT-study, a randomized controlled trial in which roughly 226,000 adults covered by a Dutch nonprofit health insurance provider were invited to take part.

Of those, just over 19,000 agreed and were randomly assigned to either an intervention group that had free access to the skin app for 12 months or a control group that had no access. They were told that if they had any skin lesions they were worried about, they should visit their general practitioner.

During that period, the study found there was no significant difference in rates of histologically verified melanoma between the intervention and control groups, at 0.26% vs 0.31% — a risk difference of -0.05% (P = .68).

Similarly, the groups showed no difference in rates of any type of skin cancer, including squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas, at 2.66% in the intervention group vs 2.27% in the control group (P = .10). Rates of premalignant lesions were also comparable (6.9% vs 6.3%; P = .23).

The researchers then examined participants’ claims data to look at healthcare visits for benign skin lesions. There, app users did have a significantly higher rate, at 3.9% vs 2.6% (P < .001).

A Case of Inherent Bias?

The lack of benefit for skin cancer detection prompted the researchers to view the data from a different angle. They compared their trial participants with over 200,000 nonresponders from the health insurance plan. And that’s when a difference emerged.

Overall, trial participants were nearly three times more likely to have a skin premalignancy or malignancy diagnosed during that period, at 6.7% vs 2.4% (P < .001).

Wakkee said that because trial participants were told that the study aimed to gauge “the potential impact of this technology” in assessing skin lesions, that might have created an inherent bias. Participants assigned to the control group may have been motivated to have any worrisome skin growth checked out by their general practitioners.

In addition, Wakkee cautioned that the 12-month results are based on a small number of cancer cases, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the app’s performance. The trial has a second phase, where both groups were given free access to the app for 12 months, then followed for an additional 24 months.

Longer-term data are needed, Wakkee noted, in part to see whether people’s app usage changes over time.

Future Questions

Audience members at the presentation raised questions about how AI-based apps could be best deployed for skin cancer detection — including whether they might work better in the hands of clinicians rather than patients.

Wakkee said that clinicians would need a more advanced technology than that included in the app used in this trial. But future studies, she said, will look at whether the app can be used in a more targeted way, specifically, as a triage tool for people who are already concerned about something on their skin, to help them decide if they need to visit their doctor.

One presentation attendee wondered whether people given a low-risk result by the app were likely to be reassured or still make an appointment.

Wakkee said her team has begun to dig into that question. In a pilot study, 50 patients who wanted to see their general practitioner for a skin lesion were asked: If you received a low-risk rating on the skin app, would you still visit your doctor?

“Half of them said they would stay at home,” Wakkee said. She added, however, that her team is conducting a follow-up study to see what people actually do.

The trial was supported by SkinVision. The researchers declared having no relevant financial relationships.

This article was previously published by Medscape.

An AI-based skin assessment app may drive up healthcare visits for benign lesions, with unclear benefits for skin cancer detection, a Dutch clinical trial has found.

The trial, of nearly 20,000 patients in one health insurance plan, found that those given free access to the app were no more likely to be diagnosed with skin cancer over 1 year than participants assigned to a control group with no app access. They were, however, more likely to make healthcare visits for benign skin lesions.

The results came as a surprise, lead researcher Marlies Wakkee, MD, PhD, said during a presentation at the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) Congress 2026, held in Prague, Czech Republic.

“We were a bit flabbergasted,” said Wakkee, of Erasmus MC in Rotterdam, Netherlands. “We were, of course, expecting that those who would use this intervention app would have more skin cancer diagnoses than those who did not.”

She did, however, point to a potential reason for the lack of benefit: A deeper look at the data suggested that participants in the control group might have been particularly motivated to see their doctor for suspicious skin growths.

Can AI Apps Fill a Gap?

Wakkee pointed out that routine skin cancer screening via clinical skin examination is considered infeasible in many countries. Current guidance from the US Preventive Services Task Force says there is insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms from widespread screening.

A plethora of AI-based skin assessment apps have entered the market in recent years, Wakkee said, and in theory, they have the potential to aid in earlier skin cancer diagnosis. But, she added, the technology also comes with potential harms, ranging from spurring healthcare visits for benign lesions to missing true cancers.

The current trial focused on the SkinVision app. It relies on a convolutional neural network to analyze images of skin lesions captured by the user’s smartphone and provides risk assessments of low, medium or high; a tele-dermatology team is available for support.

The app has been reimbursed in Netherlands via health insurance companies since 2019, and by 2021, it was available to 2.2 million insurees, with an uptake of about 1%, according to Wakkee.

In a previous study, the researchers used insurance claims data to study 18,960 app users and compare them with 56,880 nonusers. They found that app use was associated with an increased likelihood of being diagnosed with cutaneous malignancies and premalignancies but also benign tumors and nevi.

“So there’s a group in there that just is very worried about their skin,” Wakkee said.

To investigate further, her team conducted the SPOT-study, a randomized controlled trial in which roughly 226,000 adults covered by a Dutch nonprofit health insurance provider were invited to take part.

Of those, just over 19,000 agreed and were randomly assigned to either an intervention group that had free access to the skin app for 12 months or a control group that had no access. They were told that if they had any skin lesions they were worried about, they should visit their general practitioner.

During that period, the study found there was no significant difference in rates of histologically verified melanoma between the intervention and control groups, at 0.26% vs 0.31% — a risk difference of -0.05% (P = .68).

Similarly, the groups showed no difference in rates of any type of skin cancer, including squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas, at 2.66% in the intervention group vs 2.27% in the control group (P = .10). Rates of premalignant lesions were also comparable (6.9% vs 6.3%; P = .23).

The researchers then examined participants’ claims data to look at healthcare visits for benign skin lesions. There, app users did have a significantly higher rate, at 3.9% vs 2.6% (P < .001).

A Case of Inherent Bias?

The lack of benefit for skin cancer detection prompted the researchers to view the data from a different angle. They compared their trial participants with over 200,000 nonresponders from the health insurance plan. And that’s when a difference emerged.

Overall, trial participants were nearly three times more likely to have a skin premalignancy or malignancy diagnosed during that period, at 6.7% vs 2.4% (P < .001).

Wakkee said that because trial participants were told that the study aimed to gauge “the potential impact of this technology” in assessing skin lesions, that might have created an inherent bias. Participants assigned to the control group may have been motivated to have any worrisome skin growth checked out by their general practitioners.

In addition, Wakkee cautioned that the 12-month results are based on a small number of cancer cases, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the app’s performance. The trial has a second phase, where both groups were given free access to the app for 12 months, then followed for an additional 24 months.

Longer-term data are needed, Wakkee noted, in part to see whether people’s app usage changes over time.

Future Questions

Audience members at the presentation raised questions about how AI-based apps could be best deployed for skin cancer detection — including whether they might work better in the hands of clinicians rather than patients.

Wakkee said that clinicians would need a more advanced technology than that included in the app used in this trial. But future studies, she said, will look at whether the app can be used in a more targeted way, specifically, as a triage tool for people who are already concerned about something on their skin, to help them decide if they need to visit their doctor.

One presentation attendee wondered whether people given a low-risk result by the app were likely to be reassured or still make an appointment.

Wakkee said her team has begun to dig into that question. In a pilot study, 50 patients who wanted to see their general practitioner for a skin lesion were asked: If you received a low-risk rating on the skin app, would you still visit your doctor?

“Half of them said they would stay at home,” Wakkee said. She added, however, that her team is conducting a follow-up study to see what people actually do.

The trial was supported by SkinVision. The researchers declared having no relevant financial relationships.

This article was previously published by Medscape.

An AI-based skin assessment app may drive up healthcare visits for benign lesions, with unclear benefits for skin cancer detection, a Dutch clinical trial has found.

The trial, of nearly 20,000 patients in one health insurance plan, found that those given free access to the app were no more likely to be diagnosed with skin cancer over 1 year than participants assigned to a control group with no app access. They were, however, more likely to make healthcare visits for benign skin lesions.

The results came as a surprise, lead researcher Marlies Wakkee, MD, PhD, said during a presentation at the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO) Congress 2026, held in Prague, Czech Republic.

“We were a bit flabbergasted,” said Wakkee, of Erasmus MC in Rotterdam, Netherlands. “We were, of course, expecting that those who would use this intervention app would have more skin cancer diagnoses than those who did not.”

She did, however, point to a potential reason for the lack of benefit: A deeper look at the data suggested that participants in the control group might have been particularly motivated to see their doctor for suspicious skin growths.

Can AI Apps Fill a Gap?

Wakkee pointed out that routine skin cancer screening via clinical skin examination is considered infeasible in many countries. Current guidance from the US Preventive Services Task Force says there is insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms from widespread screening.

A plethora of AI-based skin assessment apps have entered the market in recent years, Wakkee said, and in theory, they have the potential to aid in earlier skin cancer diagnosis. But, she added, the technology also comes with potential harms, ranging from spurring healthcare visits for benign lesions to missing true cancers.

The current trial focused on the SkinVision app. It relies on a convolutional neural network to analyze images of skin lesions captured by the user’s smartphone and provides risk assessments of low, medium or high; a tele-dermatology team is available for support.

The app has been reimbursed in Netherlands via health insurance companies since 2019, and by 2021, it was available to 2.2 million insurees, with an uptake of about 1%, according to Wakkee.

In a previous study, the researchers used insurance claims data to study 18,960 app users and compare them with 56,880 nonusers. They found that app use was associated with an increased likelihood of being diagnosed with cutaneous malignancies and premalignancies but also benign tumors and nevi.

“So there’s a group in there that just is very worried about their skin,” Wakkee said.

To investigate further, her team conducted the SPOT-study, a randomized controlled trial in which roughly 226,000 adults covered by a Dutch nonprofit health insurance provider were invited to take part.

Of those, just over 19,000 agreed and were randomly assigned to either an intervention group that had free access to the skin app for 12 months or a control group that had no access. They were told that if they had any skin lesions they were worried about, they should visit their general practitioner.

During that period, the study found there was no significant difference in rates of histologically verified melanoma between the intervention and control groups, at 0.26% vs 0.31% — a risk difference of -0.05% (P = .68).

Similarly, the groups showed no difference in rates of any type of skin cancer, including squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas, at 2.66% in the intervention group vs 2.27% in the control group (P = .10). Rates of premalignant lesions were also comparable (6.9% vs 6.3%; P = .23).

The researchers then examined participants’ claims data to look at healthcare visits for benign skin lesions. There, app users did have a significantly higher rate, at 3.9% vs 2.6% (P < .001).

A Case of Inherent Bias?

The lack of benefit for skin cancer detection prompted the researchers to view the data from a different angle. They compared their trial participants with over 200,000 nonresponders from the health insurance plan. And that’s when a difference emerged.

Overall, trial participants were nearly three times more likely to have a skin premalignancy or malignancy diagnosed during that period, at 6.7% vs 2.4% (P < .001).

Wakkee said that because trial participants were told that the study aimed to gauge “the potential impact of this technology” in assessing skin lesions, that might have created an inherent bias. Participants assigned to the control group may have been motivated to have any worrisome skin growth checked out by their general practitioners.

In addition, Wakkee cautioned that the 12-month results are based on a small number of cancer cases, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the app’s performance. The trial has a second phase, where both groups were given free access to the app for 12 months, then followed for an additional 24 months.

Longer-term data are needed, Wakkee noted, in part to see whether people’s app usage changes over time.

Future Questions

Audience members at the presentation raised questions about how AI-based apps could be best deployed for skin cancer detection — including whether they might work better in the hands of clinicians rather than patients.

Wakkee said that clinicians would need a more advanced technology than that included in the app used in this trial. But future studies, she said, will look at whether the app can be used in a more targeted way, specifically, as a triage tool for people who are already concerned about something on their skin, to help them decide if they need to visit their doctor.

One presentation attendee wondered whether people given a low-risk result by the app were likely to be reassured or still make an appointment.

Wakkee said her team has begun to dig into that question. In a pilot study, 50 patients who wanted to see their general practitioner for a skin lesion were asked: If you received a low-risk rating on the skin app, would you still visit your doctor?

“Half of them said they would stay at home,” Wakkee said. She added, however, that her team is conducting a follow-up study to see what people actually do.

The trial was supported by SkinVision. The researchers declared having no relevant financial relationships.

This article was previously published by Medscape.

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to have a survival benefit if they receive influenza vaccination, a new retrospective analysis found. The results also suggest no increase in the risk for immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in these patients and that the improvement in survival outcomes may be stronger among those with cutaneous malignant melanoma.

“Our findings align with a growing body of evidence, mainly from retrospective studies, that suggest a potential association between influenza vaccination during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and improved survival among patients with cancer,” wrote senior author Antonis Valachis, MD, PhD, and colleagues in an article published in JCO Clinical Practice on February 9. “An additional clinically relevant observation is that the association between influenza vaccination and survival may vary by tumor type.”

The new research supports “current recommendations to offer influenza vaccination to all patients undergoing cancer therapy, including those receiving the drugs,” Valachis, of the Department of Oncology, Örebro University in Örebro, Sweden, and his coauthors wrote.

“What we observed is that influenza vaccination is safe for patients under immunotherapy treatment,” Valachis told Medscape Medical News. But “whether influenza vaccination can be used to boost immunotherapy effectiveness should be tested in a study with a different design,” such as a prospective interventional trial.

Discussing potential explanations for why influenza vaccination could affect immunotherapy outcomes without affecting rates of IRAEs, Valachis said that this “cannot be answered within the constraints of our study design, since all patients were treated with immunotherapy.”

It may nevertheless be hypothesized that “immune activation triggered by vaccination preferentially stimulates immune mechanisms that enhance immunotherapy efficacy, while sparing those that contribute to IRAEs.”

Steady Was 'Relatively Modestly Sized'

Question marks were raised over the study itself and, as a result, its findings.

Justin Jee, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told Medscape Medical News that there are “a lot of challenges when looking at retrospective data.”

“The authors did a very reasonable job of trying to control for confounders and certain time dependent issues, like immortality bias,” he said. “That said, it’s a relatively modestly sized retrospective study for looking at something that has enormous potential for confounding bias that really can’t be captured with any standard statistical method.”

Jee pointed to factors such as providers potentially being more likely to refer people for vaccination if they’re healthier “vs if the patient is in hospice care,” or individuals simply not getting vaccinated because it is not uppermost in their mind.

“Those things are very, very difficult to control for.”

Jee also said he believes the benefit with influenza vaccination being stronger in cutaneous malignant melanoma could be a study artifact, while the lack of difference in rates of IRAEs could be the result of selection bias, but “it’s just impossible to say with a study like this.”

“I’ve seen several studies looking at both COVID and flu vaccines and whether or not they improve immune checkpoint blockade efficacy,” he added, explaining that “some of them say COVID vaccine good, flu vaccine not as good; others say both flu and COVID vaccines good; others say flu vaccine good, COVID vaccine not as good.”

All Patients With Cancer Should Be Vaccinated

What is clear is that “patients with cancer are [at] especially high risk of developing complications from viral illnesses, including flu, including COVID, and vaccines are a very important part of reducing morbidity, mortality, and spread,” Jee said. The “big picture” is that everyone should get the influenza vaccine, especially patients with cancer, “so in that sense I agree with that part of the conclusion of the paper” and that’s “an important message.”

Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed, saying that the results are “consistent with other research showing that vaccines are safe and beneficial for patients on checkpoint inhibitors.”

“While vaccinated patients with melanoma showed the greatest survival benefit, the authors note small sample size and unrecognized differences between the groups as a potential explanation for their findings. This does not change vaccine recommendations as evidence already supports flu vaccine safety and effectiveness in people with lung cancer on checkpoint inhibitors.”

Nearly 600 Patients With Advanced Cancer

The researchers performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from three regions in Sweden who had advanced solid tumors and were treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy, or PD-1 combination therapy with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor, between January 1, 2016, until December 31, 2021. Treatment was given either routinely or as part of a clinical trial.

Electronic medical records were examined to gather data on a range of variables, including age at diagnosis, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response, IRAEs, influenza vaccination status, and date and cause of death.

In all, 587 patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibition over the study period. They had a median age of 66 years, and 58.1% were men. The most common malignancies were nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cutaneous malignant melanoma (32.5%), and renal cell carcinoma (14.7%).

The most commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor was nivolumab, which was administered to 47.9% of patients, followed by pembrolizumab (34.6%), atezolizumab (9.4%), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.8%).

Only Patients With Malignant Melanoma Benefit

Over the study period, 17.7% of patients underwent influenza vaccination, at a median time between initiation of immune checkpoint inhibition and vaccination of 2 months. Ninety per cent of patients received the vaccine within 9 months of starting treatment.

Time-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was significantly longer with vaccinated patients than unvaccinated patients at a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79), as was overall survival, at a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75).

There was no significant difference in rwPFS and overall survival between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients among those with NSCLC, but significant differences were seen in those with cutaneous malignant melanoma, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96), respectively.

Restricting the analysis to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy indicated that vaccinated patients had significantly longer rwPFS and overall survival than unvaccinated patients, at hazard ratios of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.76), respectively.

Finally, the team found that there were no significant differences in the rates of any grade IRAEs between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, at 48.4% vs 51.2% (P = .455), or in rates of multiple IRAEs, at 15.1% vs 19.2% (P = .297). The therapeutic management and outcomes of IRAEs were also comparable.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

BERLIN — Re-treatment with an antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agent is effective in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors confirmed on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), although the sequencing of therapy does not seem to matter, suggest overall survival results from the crossover trial PARERE.

The findings nevertheless indicate that anti-EGFR rechallenge with panitumumab may prolong progression-free survival (PFS) over the multiple kinase inhibitor regorafenib. This suggests that “the most pragmatic choice” would be to give the anti-EGFR before regorafenib, said study presenter Marco Maria Germani, MD, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

The caveat, however, is in patients who have an anti-EGFR interval since previously receiving the drugs of < 6 months. Those patients appeared to do better if they had regorafenib first and then anti-EGFR rechallenge.

Overall, Germani said that “since [trifluridine/tipiracil] plus bevacizumab is today the third-line standard of care” in this patient population, “anti-EGFR re-treatment might be considered after progression” on that combination.

Germani presented the research on October 18 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025, which was simultaneously published in the Annals of Oncology.

Michel P. Ducreux, MD, PhD, head of the Digestive Cancer Committee at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, and invited discussant for the results, said, despite the study being negative, it is “very important to continue to perform this kind of trial to evaluate the [ideal] sequence in the treatment of our patients.”

He continued that the secondary endpoints in the trial of PFS and objective response and disease control rates were “fairly in favor of the use of rechallenge before regorafenib, and in my opinion, this is really quite convincing.”

Ducreux, who was not involved in PARERE trail, also pointed to the sex difference seen in the study, which suggested that women responded much better to having anti-EGFR retreatment before regorafenib than did men.

Similar findings have been reported in a number of other trials, and previous work has suggested that there are sex differences in the pharmacokinetics of several anticancer drugs. However, while this is “very important,” he said that “we never consider it, because we are not able to really explain [it].”

Overall, he concluded that, on the basis of these results, he would agree with the notion that it is better to propose a rechallenge with anti-EGFR treatment as the fourth-line therapy in this patient population, before administering regorafenib.

Ducreux explained that, after a partial response, tumors acquire resistance to EGFR inhibitors through alterations and mutations that occur during treatment, via nongenetic mechanisms, and through treatment-induced selection for preexisting mutations.

Previous work has shown that mutations, such as in the RAS gene, are detectable early during EGFR inhibitor therapy, but that they then decay exponentially once the drugs are stopped, with the potential that tumors regain their sensitivity to them.

Germani said that this means that ctDNA-guided retreatment with anti-EGFR therapies is a “promising approach” in pretreated patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, and that the sequencing of the drugs may be important. Indeed, the REVERCE trial showed that giving regorafenib followed by the anti-EGFR drug cetuzximab was associated with longer overall survival than the other way around in anti-EGFR medication-naive patients.

 

Methods and Results

For PARERE, the researchers enrolled patients aged at least 18 years with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were previously treated with a first-line anti-EGFR-containing regimen and had at least a partial response or stable disease for at least 6 months.

The patients were also required to have had at least one intervening anti-EGFR-free line of therapy, and to have previously received treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and anti-angiogenics. At least 4 months were required to have passed between the end of anti-EGFR administration and screening for the study.

In all, 428 patients were screened between December 2020 and December 2024, with 213 patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, as detected on ctDNA, enrolled. They were randomized to panitumumab or regorafenib until first progression, followed by regorafenib, if they started on panitumumab, or panitumumab, if they started on regorafenib, until second progression.

The median age of the patients was 61 years among those who started on panitumumab and 64 years among those initially given regorafenib in the trial, and 63% and 57%, respectively, were male. The median number of prior lines of therapy was two in both groups, and 65% and 69%, respectively, had received pantitumumab as their first-line anti-EGFR.

Initial findings from the study presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting indicated that, after a median follow-up of 23.5 months, there was no significant difference in the median first PFS between the two treatment arms.

However, patients who started with panitumumab had a significant improvement in both the objective response and disease control rates (P < .001), as well as a signal for a potentially longer median second PFS, than those who started with regorafenib, particularly on the per-protocol analysis.

Presenting the overall survival results, Germani said that there was no significant difference between the groups on the intention-to-treat analysis, at a stratified hazard ratio of 1.13 (P = .440), or on the per-protocol analysis, at a hazard ratio of 1.07 (P = .730).

“We then ran a subgroup analysis,” he continued, “and we found out that an anti-EGFR-free interval before liquid biopsy shorter than 6 months was associated with less benefit from a panitumumab [first] sequence, which is biologically sound.”

It was also observed that women did significantly better when having panitumumab first, whereas men did not, for which “we do not have a clear biological explanation,” Germani added.

Confining the analysis to so-called “hyperselected” patients, who not only were RAS and BRAF wild type but also had no pathogenic mutations associated with anti-EGFR resistance, did not reveal any significant overall survival differences between the treatment groups.

However, Ducreux took issue with the way in which hyperselection, which is turning up more and more regularly in trials, is defined, as the choice of which mutations to include varies widely. He suggested that a consensus group be assembled to resolve this issue.

Looking more broadly, the researchers were able to show that, in this updated analysis, anti-EGFR re-treatment was superior to regorafenib regardless of the treatment sequence in terms of PFS, at 4.2 months vs 2.4 months (P = .103) when given first in the trial, and 3.9 months vs 2.7 months (P = .019) when given second in the trial, as well as in terms of objective response and disease control rates.

 

Adverse Events

In terms of safety, the results showed that, as expected, acneiform rash, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia were the most common adverse events associated with panitumumb, while those with regorafenib were fatigue, hand-foot skin reactions, and hypertension.

There were no notable differences in the number of patients receiving a post-study treatment nor in the post-study therapeutic choices, between the study arms.

The study was sponsored by GONO Foundation and partially supported by Amgen and Bayer. Germani declared having relationships with MSD and Amgen. Ducreux declared having relationships with Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Incyte, Jazz, Merck KGaA, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Keocyt, AbbVie, Abcely, Arcus, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Scandion, and Zymeworks.

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

BERLIN — Re-treatment with an antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agent is effective in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors confirmed on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), although the sequencing of therapy does not seem to matter, suggest overall survival results from the crossover trial PARERE.

The findings nevertheless indicate that anti-EGFR rechallenge with panitumumab may prolong progression-free survival (PFS) over the multiple kinase inhibitor regorafenib. This suggests that “the most pragmatic choice” would be to give the anti-EGFR before regorafenib, said study presenter Marco Maria Germani, MD, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

The caveat, however, is in patients who have an anti-EGFR interval since previously receiving the drugs of < 6 months. Those patients appeared to do better if they had regorafenib first and then anti-EGFR rechallenge.

Overall, Germani said that “since [trifluridine/tipiracil] plus bevacizumab is today the third-line standard of care” in this patient population, “anti-EGFR re-treatment might be considered after progression” on that combination.

Germani presented the research on October 18 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025, which was simultaneously published in the Annals of Oncology.

Michel P. Ducreux, MD, PhD, head of the Digestive Cancer Committee at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, and invited discussant for the results, said, despite the study being negative, it is “very important to continue to perform this kind of trial to evaluate the [ideal] sequence in the treatment of our patients.”

He continued that the secondary endpoints in the trial of PFS and objective response and disease control rates were “fairly in favor of the use of rechallenge before regorafenib, and in my opinion, this is really quite convincing.”

Ducreux, who was not involved in PARERE trail, also pointed to the sex difference seen in the study, which suggested that women responded much better to having anti-EGFR retreatment before regorafenib than did men.

Similar findings have been reported in a number of other trials, and previous work has suggested that there are sex differences in the pharmacokinetics of several anticancer drugs. However, while this is “very important,” he said that “we never consider it, because we are not able to really explain [it].”

Overall, he concluded that, on the basis of these results, he would agree with the notion that it is better to propose a rechallenge with anti-EGFR treatment as the fourth-line therapy in this patient population, before administering regorafenib.

Ducreux explained that, after a partial response, tumors acquire resistance to EGFR inhibitors through alterations and mutations that occur during treatment, via nongenetic mechanisms, and through treatment-induced selection for preexisting mutations.

Previous work has shown that mutations, such as in the RAS gene, are detectable early during EGFR inhibitor therapy, but that they then decay exponentially once the drugs are stopped, with the potential that tumors regain their sensitivity to them.

Germani said that this means that ctDNA-guided retreatment with anti-EGFR therapies is a “promising approach” in pretreated patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, and that the sequencing of the drugs may be important. Indeed, the REVERCE trial showed that giving regorafenib followed by the anti-EGFR drug cetuzximab was associated with longer overall survival than the other way around in anti-EGFR medication-naive patients.

 

Methods and Results

For PARERE, the researchers enrolled patients aged at least 18 years with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were previously treated with a first-line anti-EGFR-containing regimen and had at least a partial response or stable disease for at least 6 months.

The patients were also required to have had at least one intervening anti-EGFR-free line of therapy, and to have previously received treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and anti-angiogenics. At least 4 months were required to have passed between the end of anti-EGFR administration and screening for the study.

In all, 428 patients were screened between December 2020 and December 2024, with 213 patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, as detected on ctDNA, enrolled. They were randomized to panitumumab or regorafenib until first progression, followed by regorafenib, if they started on panitumumab, or panitumumab, if they started on regorafenib, until second progression.

The median age of the patients was 61 years among those who started on panitumumab and 64 years among those initially given regorafenib in the trial, and 63% and 57%, respectively, were male. The median number of prior lines of therapy was two in both groups, and 65% and 69%, respectively, had received pantitumumab as their first-line anti-EGFR.

Initial findings from the study presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting indicated that, after a median follow-up of 23.5 months, there was no significant difference in the median first PFS between the two treatment arms.

However, patients who started with panitumumab had a significant improvement in both the objective response and disease control rates (P < .001), as well as a signal for a potentially longer median second PFS, than those who started with regorafenib, particularly on the per-protocol analysis.

Presenting the overall survival results, Germani said that there was no significant difference between the groups on the intention-to-treat analysis, at a stratified hazard ratio of 1.13 (P = .440), or on the per-protocol analysis, at a hazard ratio of 1.07 (P = .730).

“We then ran a subgroup analysis,” he continued, “and we found out that an anti-EGFR-free interval before liquid biopsy shorter than 6 months was associated with less benefit from a panitumumab [first] sequence, which is biologically sound.”

It was also observed that women did significantly better when having panitumumab first, whereas men did not, for which “we do not have a clear biological explanation,” Germani added.

Confining the analysis to so-called “hyperselected” patients, who not only were RAS and BRAF wild type but also had no pathogenic mutations associated with anti-EGFR resistance, did not reveal any significant overall survival differences between the treatment groups.

However, Ducreux took issue with the way in which hyperselection, which is turning up more and more regularly in trials, is defined, as the choice of which mutations to include varies widely. He suggested that a consensus group be assembled to resolve this issue.

Looking more broadly, the researchers were able to show that, in this updated analysis, anti-EGFR re-treatment was superior to regorafenib regardless of the treatment sequence in terms of PFS, at 4.2 months vs 2.4 months (P = .103) when given first in the trial, and 3.9 months vs 2.7 months (P = .019) when given second in the trial, as well as in terms of objective response and disease control rates.

 

Adverse Events

In terms of safety, the results showed that, as expected, acneiform rash, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia were the most common adverse events associated with panitumumb, while those with regorafenib were fatigue, hand-foot skin reactions, and hypertension.

There were no notable differences in the number of patients receiving a post-study treatment nor in the post-study therapeutic choices, between the study arms.

The study was sponsored by GONO Foundation and partially supported by Amgen and Bayer. Germani declared having relationships with MSD and Amgen. Ducreux declared having relationships with Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Incyte, Jazz, Merck KGaA, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Keocyt, AbbVie, Abcely, Arcus, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Scandion, and Zymeworks.

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

BERLIN — Re-treatment with an antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agent is effective in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors confirmed on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), although the sequencing of therapy does not seem to matter, suggest overall survival results from the crossover trial PARERE.

The findings nevertheless indicate that anti-EGFR rechallenge with panitumumab may prolong progression-free survival (PFS) over the multiple kinase inhibitor regorafenib. This suggests that “the most pragmatic choice” would be to give the anti-EGFR before regorafenib, said study presenter Marco Maria Germani, MD, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

The caveat, however, is in patients who have an anti-EGFR interval since previously receiving the drugs of < 6 months. Those patients appeared to do better if they had regorafenib first and then anti-EGFR rechallenge.

Overall, Germani said that “since [trifluridine/tipiracil] plus bevacizumab is today the third-line standard of care” in this patient population, “anti-EGFR re-treatment might be considered after progression” on that combination.

Germani presented the research on October 18 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025, which was simultaneously published in the Annals of Oncology.

Michel P. Ducreux, MD, PhD, head of the Digestive Cancer Committee at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, and invited discussant for the results, said, despite the study being negative, it is “very important to continue to perform this kind of trial to evaluate the [ideal] sequence in the treatment of our patients.”

He continued that the secondary endpoints in the trial of PFS and objective response and disease control rates were “fairly in favor of the use of rechallenge before regorafenib, and in my opinion, this is really quite convincing.”

Ducreux, who was not involved in PARERE trail, also pointed to the sex difference seen in the study, which suggested that women responded much better to having anti-EGFR retreatment before regorafenib than did men.

Similar findings have been reported in a number of other trials, and previous work has suggested that there are sex differences in the pharmacokinetics of several anticancer drugs. However, while this is “very important,” he said that “we never consider it, because we are not able to really explain [it].”

Overall, he concluded that, on the basis of these results, he would agree with the notion that it is better to propose a rechallenge with anti-EGFR treatment as the fourth-line therapy in this patient population, before administering regorafenib.

Ducreux explained that, after a partial response, tumors acquire resistance to EGFR inhibitors through alterations and mutations that occur during treatment, via nongenetic mechanisms, and through treatment-induced selection for preexisting mutations.

Previous work has shown that mutations, such as in the RAS gene, are detectable early during EGFR inhibitor therapy, but that they then decay exponentially once the drugs are stopped, with the potential that tumors regain their sensitivity to them.

Germani said that this means that ctDNA-guided retreatment with anti-EGFR therapies is a “promising approach” in pretreated patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, and that the sequencing of the drugs may be important. Indeed, the REVERCE trial showed that giving regorafenib followed by the anti-EGFR drug cetuzximab was associated with longer overall survival than the other way around in anti-EGFR medication-naive patients.

 

Methods and Results

For PARERE, the researchers enrolled patients aged at least 18 years with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were previously treated with a first-line anti-EGFR-containing regimen and had at least a partial response or stable disease for at least 6 months.

The patients were also required to have had at least one intervening anti-EGFR-free line of therapy, and to have previously received treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and anti-angiogenics. At least 4 months were required to have passed between the end of anti-EGFR administration and screening for the study.

In all, 428 patients were screened between December 2020 and December 2024, with 213 patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, as detected on ctDNA, enrolled. They were randomized to panitumumab or regorafenib until first progression, followed by regorafenib, if they started on panitumumab, or panitumumab, if they started on regorafenib, until second progression.

The median age of the patients was 61 years among those who started on panitumumab and 64 years among those initially given regorafenib in the trial, and 63% and 57%, respectively, were male. The median number of prior lines of therapy was two in both groups, and 65% and 69%, respectively, had received pantitumumab as their first-line anti-EGFR.

Initial findings from the study presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting indicated that, after a median follow-up of 23.5 months, there was no significant difference in the median first PFS between the two treatment arms.

However, patients who started with panitumumab had a significant improvement in both the objective response and disease control rates (P < .001), as well as a signal for a potentially longer median second PFS, than those who started with regorafenib, particularly on the per-protocol analysis.

Presenting the overall survival results, Germani said that there was no significant difference between the groups on the intention-to-treat analysis, at a stratified hazard ratio of 1.13 (P = .440), or on the per-protocol analysis, at a hazard ratio of 1.07 (P = .730).

“We then ran a subgroup analysis,” he continued, “and we found out that an anti-EGFR-free interval before liquid biopsy shorter than 6 months was associated with less benefit from a panitumumab [first] sequence, which is biologically sound.”

It was also observed that women did significantly better when having panitumumab first, whereas men did not, for which “we do not have a clear biological explanation,” Germani added.

Confining the analysis to so-called “hyperselected” patients, who not only were RAS and BRAF wild type but also had no pathogenic mutations associated with anti-EGFR resistance, did not reveal any significant overall survival differences between the treatment groups.

However, Ducreux took issue with the way in which hyperselection, which is turning up more and more regularly in trials, is defined, as the choice of which mutations to include varies widely. He suggested that a consensus group be assembled to resolve this issue.

Looking more broadly, the researchers were able to show that, in this updated analysis, anti-EGFR re-treatment was superior to regorafenib regardless of the treatment sequence in terms of PFS, at 4.2 months vs 2.4 months (P = .103) when given first in the trial, and 3.9 months vs 2.7 months (P = .019) when given second in the trial, as well as in terms of objective response and disease control rates.

 

Adverse Events

In terms of safety, the results showed that, as expected, acneiform rash, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia were the most common adverse events associated with panitumumb, while those with regorafenib were fatigue, hand-foot skin reactions, and hypertension.

There were no notable differences in the number of patients receiving a post-study treatment nor in the post-study therapeutic choices, between the study arms.

The study was sponsored by GONO Foundation and partially supported by Amgen and Bayer. Germani declared having relationships with MSD and Amgen. Ducreux declared having relationships with Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Incyte, Jazz, Merck KGaA, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Keocyt, AbbVie, Abcely, Arcus, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Scandion, and Zymeworks.

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

BERLIN — Patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who are not candidates for immunotherapy may experience improved survival outcomes with TROP2-directed antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), suggested two trials presented at European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025 on October 19.

ASCENT-03 compared sacituzumab govitecan with standard of care chemotherapy, finding that the drug was associated with a 38% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in this patient population that has, traditionally, a poor prognosis. Overall survival data remain immature.

TROPION-Breast02 studied datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) against investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. The PFS improvement with the ADC was 43%, while patients also experienced a 21% improvement in overall survival. In both cases, the safety profile of the experimental drugs was deemed to be manageable.

Discussant Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, director, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in either study, said that both sacituzumab govitecan and Dato-DXd showed a PFS benefit. The choice between them, leaving aside overall survival until the data are mature, will be largely based on factors such as the safety profile and the patient preference, she continued.

Sacituzumab govitecan is associated with an increase in neutropenia, nausea, and diarrhea, she pointed out, while Dato-DXd has increased rates of ocular surface toxicity, oral mucositis/stomatitis, and requires monitoring for interstitial lung disease.

Dato-DXd has a higher objective response rate than chemotherapy, unlike sacituzumab govitecan, but, crucially, requires one infusion vs 2 for sacituzumab govitecan per 21-day cycle, and has a shorter total infusion time.

There are nevertheless a number of unanswered questions about the drugs, including how the ADCs affect quality of life, and how common patient adherence to the recommended prophylaxis is. Patients with early relapse of < 12 months remain an “urgent unmet need,” Garrido-Castro said, and the role of immunotherapy rechallenge remains to be explored.

ADCs are also being tested in the neo-adjuvant TNBC setting, and the potential impact of that on the use of the drugs in the metastatic setting is currently unclear. In addition, there are questions around access to therapy.

“Ultimately, it will be very important to have a better understanding of the biomarkers of response and resistance and toxicity to these agents, and whether we should be sequencing antibody drug conjugates,” Garrido-Castro said. “All of this will help shape the next wave of treatment strategies for this patient population.”

She concluded: “Today, marks a paradigm shift of metastatic TNBC, in my opinion. ASCENT-03 and TROPION-Breast02 support TROP2 ADC therapy as the new preferred first-line regimen for this patient population.”

 

Method and Results of ASCENT-03

ASCENT-03 study presenter Javier C. Cortés, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Pangaea Oncology, Quiron Group, Barcelona, Spain, said there is currently an unmet clinical need in the approximately 60% of patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC who are not candidates for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Median PFS in previous first-line studies was < 6 months with chemotherapy — the current standard of care — and Cortés said that around half of the patients who receive that in the first-line do not receive second-line therapy because of clinical deterioration or death.

“The sobering truth is that across studies in the US and Europe, approximately 25% to 30% of patients diagnosed with metastatic TNBC are no longer alive at 6 months from their metastatic diagnosis,” said Garrido-Castro. “So if there is a new drug that is able to significantly improve PFS with an acceptable toxicity profile, this should be sufficient to change the current standard of care in the first-line setting.”

As sacituzumab govitecan is already approved for second-line metastatic TNBC and for pretreated hormone receptor positive/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, the ASCENT-03 researchers studied the drug in patients with previously untreated locally advanced inoperable, or metastatic TNBC.

The patients were deemed not to be candidates for PD-L1 inhibitors through having PD-L1-negative tumors, by having PD-L1-positive tumors that had previously been treated with PD-L1 inhibitors in the curative setting, or by having a comorbidity that precluded PD-L1 inhibitor use.

The patients were required to have finished any prior treatment in the curative setting at least 6 months previously. Previously treated, stable central nervous system metastases were allowed.

They were randomized to sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy, comprising paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, until progression, as verified by blinded independent central review (BICR), or unacceptable toxicity. Patients who progressed on chemotherapy were offered crossover to second-line sacituzumab govitecan.

In all, 558 patients were randomized. The median age was 56 years in the sacituzumab govitecan group vs 54 years in the chemotherapy group. The majority (64% in both groups) of patients were White individuals. The most common metastatic site was the lung (59% vs 61%), and 58% of patients in both groups had previously received a taxane.

Cortés reported that sacituzumab govitecan was associated with a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” improvement in PFS by BICR, at a median of 9.7 months vs 6.9 months, or a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 (P < .0001). This benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups.

The objective response rate was almost identical between the two treatment groups, at 48% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 46% with chemotherapy, although the median duration of response was longer with the ADC, at 12.2 months vs 7.2 months.

Cortés showed the latest results on overall survival. This showed no significant difference between the two treatments, although he underlined that the data are not yet mature.

He also reported that the rates of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar in the two groups, at 66% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 62% with chemotherapy. However, the rates of TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation (4% vs 12%) or dose reduction (37% vs 45%) were lower with the ADC.

Cortés concluded that the results suggest that sacituzumab govitecan “is a good option for patients with triple negative breast cancer when they develop metastasis and are unable to receive immune checkpoint inhibitors.”

 

TROPION-Breast02 Methods and Results

Presenting TROPION-Breast02, Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, explained that the trial looked at a patient population similar to that of ASCENT-03, here focusing instead on Dato-DXd.

Patients were included if they had histologically or cytologically documented locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC, no prior chemotherapy or targeted systemic therapy in this setting, and in whom immunotherapy was not an option.

They were randomized to Dato-DXd or the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, with treatment continued until investigator-assessed progressive disease on RECIST v1.1, unacceptable toxicity, or another criterion for discontinuation was met.

In total, 642 patients were enrolled. The median age was 56 years for those in the Dato-DXd group and 57 years for those in chemotherapy group, and less than half (41% in the Dato-DXd group and 48% in the chemotherapy group) were White individuals. The number of metastatic sites was less than three in 64% and 67% of patients, respectively.

Dent showed that Dato-DXd was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in BICR-assessed PFS, at a median of 10.8 months vs 5.6 months with chemotherapy, at a HR of 0.57 (P < .0001). The findings were replicated across the prespecified subgroups.

There was a marked overall survival benefit with Dato-DXd, at a median of 23.7 months vs 18.7 months, at a HR of 0.79 (P = .0291). Dent reported that, at 18 months, 61.2% of patients in the Dato-DXd group were still alive vs 51.3% in the chemotherapy group. Again, the benefit was seen across subgroups.

The confirmed objective response rate with Dato-DXd was far higher than that with chemotherapy, at 62.5% vs 29.3%, or an odds ratio of 4.24. The duration of response was also longer, at 12.3 months vs 7.1 months.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were comparable, at 33% with Dato-DXd vs 29% with chemotherapy, although there were more events associated with dose reduction (27% vs 18%) and dose interruption (24% vs 19%) with the ADC.

“These results support Dato-DXd as the first new first-line standard of care for patients with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC for whom immunotherapy is not an option,” Dent said.

“What’s important is the patients enrolled into this trial are clearly representative of real world patients that we are treating in our clinics every day. These patients are often excluded from our current clinical trials,” she said.

ASCENT-03 was funded by Gilead Sciences.

TROPION-Breast02 was funded by AstraZeneca.Cortés declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, HiberCell, BioInvent, GEMoaB, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Scorpion Therapeutics, Bridgebio, Biocon, Biontech, Circle Pharma, Delcath Systems, Hexagon Bio, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Stemline Therapeutics, MAJ3 Capital, Leuko, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Baxalta GmbH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Guardant Health, and PIQUR Therapeutics.

Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, and Gilead Sciences.

Garrido-Castro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, TD Cowen, and Roche/Genentech.

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

BERLIN — Patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who are not candidates for immunotherapy may experience improved survival outcomes with TROP2-directed antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), suggested two trials presented at European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025 on October 19.

ASCENT-03 compared sacituzumab govitecan with standard of care chemotherapy, finding that the drug was associated with a 38% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in this patient population that has, traditionally, a poor prognosis. Overall survival data remain immature.

TROPION-Breast02 studied datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) against investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. The PFS improvement with the ADC was 43%, while patients also experienced a 21% improvement in overall survival. In both cases, the safety profile of the experimental drugs was deemed to be manageable.

Discussant Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, director, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in either study, said that both sacituzumab govitecan and Dato-DXd showed a PFS benefit. The choice between them, leaving aside overall survival until the data are mature, will be largely based on factors such as the safety profile and the patient preference, she continued.

Sacituzumab govitecan is associated with an increase in neutropenia, nausea, and diarrhea, she pointed out, while Dato-DXd has increased rates of ocular surface toxicity, oral mucositis/stomatitis, and requires monitoring for interstitial lung disease.

Dato-DXd has a higher objective response rate than chemotherapy, unlike sacituzumab govitecan, but, crucially, requires one infusion vs 2 for sacituzumab govitecan per 21-day cycle, and has a shorter total infusion time.

There are nevertheless a number of unanswered questions about the drugs, including how the ADCs affect quality of life, and how common patient adherence to the recommended prophylaxis is. Patients with early relapse of < 12 months remain an “urgent unmet need,” Garrido-Castro said, and the role of immunotherapy rechallenge remains to be explored.

ADCs are also being tested in the neo-adjuvant TNBC setting, and the potential impact of that on the use of the drugs in the metastatic setting is currently unclear. In addition, there are questions around access to therapy.

“Ultimately, it will be very important to have a better understanding of the biomarkers of response and resistance and toxicity to these agents, and whether we should be sequencing antibody drug conjugates,” Garrido-Castro said. “All of this will help shape the next wave of treatment strategies for this patient population.”

She concluded: “Today, marks a paradigm shift of metastatic TNBC, in my opinion. ASCENT-03 and TROPION-Breast02 support TROP2 ADC therapy as the new preferred first-line regimen for this patient population.”

 

Method and Results of ASCENT-03

ASCENT-03 study presenter Javier C. Cortés, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Pangaea Oncology, Quiron Group, Barcelona, Spain, said there is currently an unmet clinical need in the approximately 60% of patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC who are not candidates for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Median PFS in previous first-line studies was < 6 months with chemotherapy — the current standard of care — and Cortés said that around half of the patients who receive that in the first-line do not receive second-line therapy because of clinical deterioration or death.

“The sobering truth is that across studies in the US and Europe, approximately 25% to 30% of patients diagnosed with metastatic TNBC are no longer alive at 6 months from their metastatic diagnosis,” said Garrido-Castro. “So if there is a new drug that is able to significantly improve PFS with an acceptable toxicity profile, this should be sufficient to change the current standard of care in the first-line setting.”

As sacituzumab govitecan is already approved for second-line metastatic TNBC and for pretreated hormone receptor positive/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, the ASCENT-03 researchers studied the drug in patients with previously untreated locally advanced inoperable, or metastatic TNBC.

The patients were deemed not to be candidates for PD-L1 inhibitors through having PD-L1-negative tumors, by having PD-L1-positive tumors that had previously been treated with PD-L1 inhibitors in the curative setting, or by having a comorbidity that precluded PD-L1 inhibitor use.

The patients were required to have finished any prior treatment in the curative setting at least 6 months previously. Previously treated, stable central nervous system metastases were allowed.

They were randomized to sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy, comprising paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, until progression, as verified by blinded independent central review (BICR), or unacceptable toxicity. Patients who progressed on chemotherapy were offered crossover to second-line sacituzumab govitecan.

In all, 558 patients were randomized. The median age was 56 years in the sacituzumab govitecan group vs 54 years in the chemotherapy group. The majority (64% in both groups) of patients were White individuals. The most common metastatic site was the lung (59% vs 61%), and 58% of patients in both groups had previously received a taxane.

Cortés reported that sacituzumab govitecan was associated with a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” improvement in PFS by BICR, at a median of 9.7 months vs 6.9 months, or a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 (P < .0001). This benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups.

The objective response rate was almost identical between the two treatment groups, at 48% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 46% with chemotherapy, although the median duration of response was longer with the ADC, at 12.2 months vs 7.2 months.

Cortés showed the latest results on overall survival. This showed no significant difference between the two treatments, although he underlined that the data are not yet mature.

He also reported that the rates of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar in the two groups, at 66% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 62% with chemotherapy. However, the rates of TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation (4% vs 12%) or dose reduction (37% vs 45%) were lower with the ADC.

Cortés concluded that the results suggest that sacituzumab govitecan “is a good option for patients with triple negative breast cancer when they develop metastasis and are unable to receive immune checkpoint inhibitors.”

 

TROPION-Breast02 Methods and Results

Presenting TROPION-Breast02, Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, explained that the trial looked at a patient population similar to that of ASCENT-03, here focusing instead on Dato-DXd.

Patients were included if they had histologically or cytologically documented locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC, no prior chemotherapy or targeted systemic therapy in this setting, and in whom immunotherapy was not an option.

They were randomized to Dato-DXd or the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, with treatment continued until investigator-assessed progressive disease on RECIST v1.1, unacceptable toxicity, or another criterion for discontinuation was met.

In total, 642 patients were enrolled. The median age was 56 years for those in the Dato-DXd group and 57 years for those in chemotherapy group, and less than half (41% in the Dato-DXd group and 48% in the chemotherapy group) were White individuals. The number of metastatic sites was less than three in 64% and 67% of patients, respectively.

Dent showed that Dato-DXd was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in BICR-assessed PFS, at a median of 10.8 months vs 5.6 months with chemotherapy, at a HR of 0.57 (P < .0001). The findings were replicated across the prespecified subgroups.

There was a marked overall survival benefit with Dato-DXd, at a median of 23.7 months vs 18.7 months, at a HR of 0.79 (P = .0291). Dent reported that, at 18 months, 61.2% of patients in the Dato-DXd group were still alive vs 51.3% in the chemotherapy group. Again, the benefit was seen across subgroups.

The confirmed objective response rate with Dato-DXd was far higher than that with chemotherapy, at 62.5% vs 29.3%, or an odds ratio of 4.24. The duration of response was also longer, at 12.3 months vs 7.1 months.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were comparable, at 33% with Dato-DXd vs 29% with chemotherapy, although there were more events associated with dose reduction (27% vs 18%) and dose interruption (24% vs 19%) with the ADC.

“These results support Dato-DXd as the first new first-line standard of care for patients with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC for whom immunotherapy is not an option,” Dent said.

“What’s important is the patients enrolled into this trial are clearly representative of real world patients that we are treating in our clinics every day. These patients are often excluded from our current clinical trials,” she said.

ASCENT-03 was funded by Gilead Sciences.

TROPION-Breast02 was funded by AstraZeneca.Cortés declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, HiberCell, BioInvent, GEMoaB, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Scorpion Therapeutics, Bridgebio, Biocon, Biontech, Circle Pharma, Delcath Systems, Hexagon Bio, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Stemline Therapeutics, MAJ3 Capital, Leuko, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Baxalta GmbH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Guardant Health, and PIQUR Therapeutics.

Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, and Gilead Sciences.

Garrido-Castro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, TD Cowen, and Roche/Genentech.

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

BERLIN — Patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who are not candidates for immunotherapy may experience improved survival outcomes with TROP2-directed antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), suggested two trials presented at European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting 2025 on October 19.

ASCENT-03 compared sacituzumab govitecan with standard of care chemotherapy, finding that the drug was associated with a 38% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in this patient population that has, traditionally, a poor prognosis. Overall survival data remain immature.

TROPION-Breast02 studied datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) against investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. The PFS improvement with the ADC was 43%, while patients also experienced a 21% improvement in overall survival. In both cases, the safety profile of the experimental drugs was deemed to be manageable.

Discussant Ana C. Garrido-Castro, MD, director, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in either study, said that both sacituzumab govitecan and Dato-DXd showed a PFS benefit. The choice between them, leaving aside overall survival until the data are mature, will be largely based on factors such as the safety profile and the patient preference, she continued.

Sacituzumab govitecan is associated with an increase in neutropenia, nausea, and diarrhea, she pointed out, while Dato-DXd has increased rates of ocular surface toxicity, oral mucositis/stomatitis, and requires monitoring for interstitial lung disease.

Dato-DXd has a higher objective response rate than chemotherapy, unlike sacituzumab govitecan, but, crucially, requires one infusion vs 2 for sacituzumab govitecan per 21-day cycle, and has a shorter total infusion time.

There are nevertheless a number of unanswered questions about the drugs, including how the ADCs affect quality of life, and how common patient adherence to the recommended prophylaxis is. Patients with early relapse of < 12 months remain an “urgent unmet need,” Garrido-Castro said, and the role of immunotherapy rechallenge remains to be explored.

ADCs are also being tested in the neo-adjuvant TNBC setting, and the potential impact of that on the use of the drugs in the metastatic setting is currently unclear. In addition, there are questions around access to therapy.

“Ultimately, it will be very important to have a better understanding of the biomarkers of response and resistance and toxicity to these agents, and whether we should be sequencing antibody drug conjugates,” Garrido-Castro said. “All of this will help shape the next wave of treatment strategies for this patient population.”

She concluded: “Today, marks a paradigm shift of metastatic TNBC, in my opinion. ASCENT-03 and TROPION-Breast02 support TROP2 ADC therapy as the new preferred first-line regimen for this patient population.”

 

Method and Results of ASCENT-03

ASCENT-03 study presenter Javier C. Cortés, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Pangaea Oncology, Quiron Group, Barcelona, Spain, said there is currently an unmet clinical need in the approximately 60% of patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC who are not candidates for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Median PFS in previous first-line studies was < 6 months with chemotherapy — the current standard of care — and Cortés said that around half of the patients who receive that in the first-line do not receive second-line therapy because of clinical deterioration or death.

“The sobering truth is that across studies in the US and Europe, approximately 25% to 30% of patients diagnosed with metastatic TNBC are no longer alive at 6 months from their metastatic diagnosis,” said Garrido-Castro. “So if there is a new drug that is able to significantly improve PFS with an acceptable toxicity profile, this should be sufficient to change the current standard of care in the first-line setting.”

As sacituzumab govitecan is already approved for second-line metastatic TNBC and for pretreated hormone receptor positive/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, the ASCENT-03 researchers studied the drug in patients with previously untreated locally advanced inoperable, or metastatic TNBC.

The patients were deemed not to be candidates for PD-L1 inhibitors through having PD-L1-negative tumors, by having PD-L1-positive tumors that had previously been treated with PD-L1 inhibitors in the curative setting, or by having a comorbidity that precluded PD-L1 inhibitor use.

The patients were required to have finished any prior treatment in the curative setting at least 6 months previously. Previously treated, stable central nervous system metastases were allowed.

They were randomized to sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy, comprising paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, until progression, as verified by blinded independent central review (BICR), or unacceptable toxicity. Patients who progressed on chemotherapy were offered crossover to second-line sacituzumab govitecan.

In all, 558 patients were randomized. The median age was 56 years in the sacituzumab govitecan group vs 54 years in the chemotherapy group. The majority (64% in both groups) of patients were White individuals. The most common metastatic site was the lung (59% vs 61%), and 58% of patients in both groups had previously received a taxane.

Cortés reported that sacituzumab govitecan was associated with a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” improvement in PFS by BICR, at a median of 9.7 months vs 6.9 months, or a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 (P < .0001). This benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups.

The objective response rate was almost identical between the two treatment groups, at 48% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 46% with chemotherapy, although the median duration of response was longer with the ADC, at 12.2 months vs 7.2 months.

Cortés showed the latest results on overall survival. This showed no significant difference between the two treatments, although he underlined that the data are not yet mature.

He also reported that the rates of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar in the two groups, at 66% with sacituzumab govitecan vs 62% with chemotherapy. However, the rates of TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation (4% vs 12%) or dose reduction (37% vs 45%) were lower with the ADC.

Cortés concluded that the results suggest that sacituzumab govitecan “is a good option for patients with triple negative breast cancer when they develop metastasis and are unable to receive immune checkpoint inhibitors.”

 

TROPION-Breast02 Methods and Results

Presenting TROPION-Breast02, Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, National Cancer Center Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, explained that the trial looked at a patient population similar to that of ASCENT-03, here focusing instead on Dato-DXd.

Patients were included if they had histologically or cytologically documented locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC, no prior chemotherapy or targeted systemic therapy in this setting, and in whom immunotherapy was not an option.

They were randomized to Dato-DXd or the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, with treatment continued until investigator-assessed progressive disease on RECIST v1.1, unacceptable toxicity, or another criterion for discontinuation was met.

In total, 642 patients were enrolled. The median age was 56 years for those in the Dato-DXd group and 57 years for those in chemotherapy group, and less than half (41% in the Dato-DXd group and 48% in the chemotherapy group) were White individuals. The number of metastatic sites was less than three in 64% and 67% of patients, respectively.

Dent showed that Dato-DXd was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in BICR-assessed PFS, at a median of 10.8 months vs 5.6 months with chemotherapy, at a HR of 0.57 (P < .0001). The findings were replicated across the prespecified subgroups.

There was a marked overall survival benefit with Dato-DXd, at a median of 23.7 months vs 18.7 months, at a HR of 0.79 (P = .0291). Dent reported that, at 18 months, 61.2% of patients in the Dato-DXd group were still alive vs 51.3% in the chemotherapy group. Again, the benefit was seen across subgroups.

The confirmed objective response rate with Dato-DXd was far higher than that with chemotherapy, at 62.5% vs 29.3%, or an odds ratio of 4.24. The duration of response was also longer, at 12.3 months vs 7.1 months.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were comparable, at 33% with Dato-DXd vs 29% with chemotherapy, although there were more events associated with dose reduction (27% vs 18%) and dose interruption (24% vs 19%) with the ADC.

“These results support Dato-DXd as the first new first-line standard of care for patients with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC for whom immunotherapy is not an option,” Dent said.

“What’s important is the patients enrolled into this trial are clearly representative of real world patients that we are treating in our clinics every day. These patients are often excluded from our current clinical trials,” she said.

ASCENT-03 was funded by Gilead Sciences.

TROPION-Breast02 was funded by AstraZeneca.Cortés declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, HiberCell, BioInvent, GEMoaB, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Scorpion Therapeutics, Bridgebio, Biocon, Biontech, Circle Pharma, Delcath Systems, Hexagon Bio, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Stemline Therapeutics, MAJ3 Capital, Leuko, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Baxalta GmbH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Guardant Health, and PIQUR Therapeutics.

Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, and Gilead Sciences.

Garrido-Castro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Roche, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, TD Cowen, and Roche/Genentech.

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