AVAHO

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Findings from a cohort study highlight a potential role of tumor grade for predicting mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma response to immunotherapy, researchers report in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

The analysis, which was among patients with either high-grade or low-grade recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors, revealed that tumor grade was independently associated with immunotherapy response.

“Generally, one would expect high-grade tumors to do worse because they are more aggressive,” said Rajarsi Mandal, MD, the study’s lead author. “But it’s thought that high-grade tumors have higher degrees of chromosomal instability with a lot more mutations generated throughout the genome of these tumors ... and we know that higher mutation rates correlate with higher responses to immunotherapy.”

Researchers found that the proportion of patients having a beneficial response to immunotherapy was larger for patients with high grade tumors (12 of 35; 34.3%) than those with low grade tumors (2 of 25, 8.0%) (difference, 26.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.3%-45.3%). The odds of having a clinically beneficial response to immunotherapy was increased 5.35-fold (95% CI, 1.04-27.37) in patients with high-grade tumors. Among four patients with low-grade tumors and eight patients with high-grade tumors with available tumor mutational burden data, the mean tumor mutational burden was greater for patients with high-grade tumors (mean [standard deviation], 8.6 [5.4] mut/Mb; n = 8) than for patients with low grade tumors (mean [SD], 3.6 [1.1] mut/Mb; n = 4) (difference, 5.0 mut/Mb; 95% CI, −1.4 to 11.4 mut/Mb; Cohen d, 1.2).

“High tumor grade is not a guarantee but it possibly provides an easy biomarker and a good rationale to say that there’s a better chance the patient will respond to immune checkpoint inhibition,” said Dr. Mandal who is a head and neck cancer surgeon with the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Previous studies of HNSCC tumors that are refractory to traditional therapies, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have demonstrated a clinically beneficial response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). An association between increased tumor mutational burden and beneficial response to ICIs has been shown in other cancers.

Researchers hypothesized that tumor histological grade may be associated with responses to immune checkpoint blockade, and designed their study to examine the association between tumor grade and immunotherapy response in patients treated with ICIs for recurrent or metastatic mucosal HNSCC.

In a single-center retrospective cohort study, investigators reviewed the medical records of 60 adult patients (mean age, 64.6 years; 85% male) with a primary mucosal HNSCC tumor treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or durvalumab) treated between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2020. They stratified them into those with low grade tumors (well differentiated and moderately differentiated) and those with high grade tumors (poorly differentiated). A clinically beneficial immunotherapy response, defined as complete response or partial response was the primary outcome.

Thirty-eight patients in the study cohort were current or former smokers. The most common primary tumor sight was at the oropharynx. Outcomes among those with high-grade tumors were improved, compared with those with low-grade tumors, for median progression-free survival (5.9 months vs. 3.3 months), median overall survival (16.6 months vs. 15.0 months, and risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.94).

The study’s main limitation was its small sample size and small number of patients who had a clinically beneficial immunotherapy response.

Dr. Mandal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Findings from a cohort study highlight a potential role of tumor grade for predicting mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma response to immunotherapy, researchers report in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

The analysis, which was among patients with either high-grade or low-grade recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors, revealed that tumor grade was independently associated with immunotherapy response.

“Generally, one would expect high-grade tumors to do worse because they are more aggressive,” said Rajarsi Mandal, MD, the study’s lead author. “But it’s thought that high-grade tumors have higher degrees of chromosomal instability with a lot more mutations generated throughout the genome of these tumors ... and we know that higher mutation rates correlate with higher responses to immunotherapy.”

Researchers found that the proportion of patients having a beneficial response to immunotherapy was larger for patients with high grade tumors (12 of 35; 34.3%) than those with low grade tumors (2 of 25, 8.0%) (difference, 26.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.3%-45.3%). The odds of having a clinically beneficial response to immunotherapy was increased 5.35-fold (95% CI, 1.04-27.37) in patients with high-grade tumors. Among four patients with low-grade tumors and eight patients with high-grade tumors with available tumor mutational burden data, the mean tumor mutational burden was greater for patients with high-grade tumors (mean [standard deviation], 8.6 [5.4] mut/Mb; n = 8) than for patients with low grade tumors (mean [SD], 3.6 [1.1] mut/Mb; n = 4) (difference, 5.0 mut/Mb; 95% CI, −1.4 to 11.4 mut/Mb; Cohen d, 1.2).

“High tumor grade is not a guarantee but it possibly provides an easy biomarker and a good rationale to say that there’s a better chance the patient will respond to immune checkpoint inhibition,” said Dr. Mandal who is a head and neck cancer surgeon with the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Previous studies of HNSCC tumors that are refractory to traditional therapies, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have demonstrated a clinically beneficial response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). An association between increased tumor mutational burden and beneficial response to ICIs has been shown in other cancers.

Researchers hypothesized that tumor histological grade may be associated with responses to immune checkpoint blockade, and designed their study to examine the association between tumor grade and immunotherapy response in patients treated with ICIs for recurrent or metastatic mucosal HNSCC.

In a single-center retrospective cohort study, investigators reviewed the medical records of 60 adult patients (mean age, 64.6 years; 85% male) with a primary mucosal HNSCC tumor treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or durvalumab) treated between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2020. They stratified them into those with low grade tumors (well differentiated and moderately differentiated) and those with high grade tumors (poorly differentiated). A clinically beneficial immunotherapy response, defined as complete response or partial response was the primary outcome.

Thirty-eight patients in the study cohort were current or former smokers. The most common primary tumor sight was at the oropharynx. Outcomes among those with high-grade tumors were improved, compared with those with low-grade tumors, for median progression-free survival (5.9 months vs. 3.3 months), median overall survival (16.6 months vs. 15.0 months, and risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.94).

The study’s main limitation was its small sample size and small number of patients who had a clinically beneficial immunotherapy response.

Dr. Mandal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Findings from a cohort study highlight a potential role of tumor grade for predicting mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma response to immunotherapy, researchers report in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

The analysis, which was among patients with either high-grade or low-grade recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors, revealed that tumor grade was independently associated with immunotherapy response.

“Generally, one would expect high-grade tumors to do worse because they are more aggressive,” said Rajarsi Mandal, MD, the study’s lead author. “But it’s thought that high-grade tumors have higher degrees of chromosomal instability with a lot more mutations generated throughout the genome of these tumors ... and we know that higher mutation rates correlate with higher responses to immunotherapy.”

Researchers found that the proportion of patients having a beneficial response to immunotherapy was larger for patients with high grade tumors (12 of 35; 34.3%) than those with low grade tumors (2 of 25, 8.0%) (difference, 26.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.3%-45.3%). The odds of having a clinically beneficial response to immunotherapy was increased 5.35-fold (95% CI, 1.04-27.37) in patients with high-grade tumors. Among four patients with low-grade tumors and eight patients with high-grade tumors with available tumor mutational burden data, the mean tumor mutational burden was greater for patients with high-grade tumors (mean [standard deviation], 8.6 [5.4] mut/Mb; n = 8) than for patients with low grade tumors (mean [SD], 3.6 [1.1] mut/Mb; n = 4) (difference, 5.0 mut/Mb; 95% CI, −1.4 to 11.4 mut/Mb; Cohen d, 1.2).

“High tumor grade is not a guarantee but it possibly provides an easy biomarker and a good rationale to say that there’s a better chance the patient will respond to immune checkpoint inhibition,” said Dr. Mandal who is a head and neck cancer surgeon with the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Previous studies of HNSCC tumors that are refractory to traditional therapies, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have demonstrated a clinically beneficial response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). An association between increased tumor mutational burden and beneficial response to ICIs has been shown in other cancers.

Researchers hypothesized that tumor histological grade may be associated with responses to immune checkpoint blockade, and designed their study to examine the association between tumor grade and immunotherapy response in patients treated with ICIs for recurrent or metastatic mucosal HNSCC.

In a single-center retrospective cohort study, investigators reviewed the medical records of 60 adult patients (mean age, 64.6 years; 85% male) with a primary mucosal HNSCC tumor treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or durvalumab) treated between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2020. They stratified them into those with low grade tumors (well differentiated and moderately differentiated) and those with high grade tumors (poorly differentiated). A clinically beneficial immunotherapy response, defined as complete response or partial response was the primary outcome.

Thirty-eight patients in the study cohort were current or former smokers. The most common primary tumor sight was at the oropharynx. Outcomes among those with high-grade tumors were improved, compared with those with low-grade tumors, for median progression-free survival (5.9 months vs. 3.3 months), median overall survival (16.6 months vs. 15.0 months, and risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.94).

The study’s main limitation was its small sample size and small number of patients who had a clinically beneficial immunotherapy response.

Dr. Mandal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Adults younger than 55 years were least likely to get screened for colorectal cancer over the past 2 decades, particularly if they were Hispanic or Asian or had a low income, lower education level, or no health insurance, according to a new study published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The findings have raised concerns that disparities in screening rates will be even greater in adults aged 45-49 years, prompting the need for increased awareness and outreach to ensure that underserved groups have access to screenings.

“Differences in prevalence of screening by race and ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, and health insurance were most pronounced for those ages 50-54 years, whereas older adults experienced larger increases in prevalence across these groups,” wrote Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, a clinical investigator at Harvard University, Boston, and his colleagues. “The persistent and worsening disparities we observed in adults 50-54 years may extend to those ages 45-49 as they become eligible for screening.”

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shifted their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening in May 2021 to 5 years earlier, advising people to start screenings at 45 instead of 50, which aligns with the recommendations the American Cancer Society made 3 years earlier.

Both organizations made the change because of increasing rates of colorectal cancer in adults under age 50 and research indicating that beginning screenings at age 45 results in fewer cases, fewer deaths, and more life years gained.

“Across all age groups, colorectal cancer screening participation remains below national goals, and the benefits of screening are not equally realized across populations,” senior author Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, associate professor, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, said in a prepared statement. “Extra care must be taken to ensure that expanding screening to younger ages does not negatively impact efforts to eliminate disparities in colorectal screening and outcomes nor jeopardize efforts to increase screening initiation among older adults who remain unscreened.”
 

Data analyzed from 8 years over 2 decades

The researchers analyzed data from the CDC’s cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey during 8 years over the past 2 decades: 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018.

The number of participants each year ranged from a low of 21,781 in 2008 to a high of 34,557 in 2013. After excluding participants with a history of colorectal cancer or missing information on screenings, the total population sample included 80,220 participants 50-75 years old.

The researchers considered a person as having been screened if they received at least one recommended screening test within the year covered by the survey, regardless of why they underwent the test.

Recommended tests included sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and stool-based tests for all survey years. In addition, the surveys for 2010, 2015, and 2018 included CT colonography, and the 2018 survey included FIT-DNA.
 

Screening across population groups

Colorectal cancer screening rates have doubled in the past 2 decades, from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018.

Rates are considerably lower, however, for several key groups, including the youngest group. Less than half (47.6%) of those aged 50-54 years received screenings in 2018, though this was still a nearly 20-point improvement over the 28.2% in this age group who were screened in 2000.

Separate from age, several other groups continue to have low screening rates in general, including Hispanics (56.5%, up from 25.9% in 2000), Asians (57.1%, up from 22.6% in 2000), those who have not received a high school degree (53.6%, up from 26.8% in 2000), and those from low income families (56.6%, up from 30.2% in 2000).

The group with the greatest need for more outreach and screenings are people without insurance, only 39.7% of whom were screened in 2018, a modest increase from 30.2% in 2000.

The biggest increase in screenings over time occurred in those aged 70-75 years, from 46.4% in 2000 to 78% in 2018 overall.

Racial/ethnic, economic, education, and insurance-based disparities were particularly evident the younger people were, including in terms of progress made over time.

For example, screenings of non-Hispanic White people aged 50-54 years improved 21 points (30.3% to 51%) between 2000 and 2018, compared with 19 points in Hispanics (16.7% to 35.5%) and 15 points in Asians (17.3% to 32.3%). Fortunately, Black Americans made even greater strides than White Americans with a 27-point increase during that time (23.4% to 50%). 

Similarly, income correlated with expansion in screening rates for 50- to 54-year-olds: Those earning at least 400% over the federal poverty line improved 20 points (from 33.5% to 53.8%), compared with a 16-point improvement in those earning less than 200% above the poverty line (from 19.3% to 35%).

Those with private insurance likewise improved 21 points (from 30.7% to 51.7%), while those in this age group without insurance declined, with just 21.2% getting screened in 2018, compared with 28.2% in 2000. Those on public insurance saw a 15-point improvement, from 27.8% in 2000 to 43.1% in 2018.

“The individual and societal burden of colorectal cancer is especially great among younger adults,” the authors wrote.

The reasons for the much lower prevalence of screening in those under 55, the authors suggested, is likely due to less concern about colorectal cancer, less access to medical care (including being underinsured or uninsured), and the barriers created by competing priorities, such as work schedules, family responsibilities, and caregiving. The latter may be particularly true in underserved populations, the authors noted.

“Screening programs must consider the barriers unique to younger adults, ensuring the benefits of screening are equally realized by all population groups,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. One author reported grants from Epigenomics and Freenome and personal fees from Guardant Health. Another author reported personal fees from Freenome, and a third author reported personal fees from Exact Sciences. No other authors had industry disclosures.

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

Adults younger than 55 years were least likely to get screened for colorectal cancer over the past 2 decades, particularly if they were Hispanic or Asian or had a low income, lower education level, or no health insurance, according to a new study published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The findings have raised concerns that disparities in screening rates will be even greater in adults aged 45-49 years, prompting the need for increased awareness and outreach to ensure that underserved groups have access to screenings.

“Differences in prevalence of screening by race and ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, and health insurance were most pronounced for those ages 50-54 years, whereas older adults experienced larger increases in prevalence across these groups,” wrote Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, a clinical investigator at Harvard University, Boston, and his colleagues. “The persistent and worsening disparities we observed in adults 50-54 years may extend to those ages 45-49 as they become eligible for screening.”

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shifted their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening in May 2021 to 5 years earlier, advising people to start screenings at 45 instead of 50, which aligns with the recommendations the American Cancer Society made 3 years earlier.

Both organizations made the change because of increasing rates of colorectal cancer in adults under age 50 and research indicating that beginning screenings at age 45 results in fewer cases, fewer deaths, and more life years gained.

“Across all age groups, colorectal cancer screening participation remains below national goals, and the benefits of screening are not equally realized across populations,” senior author Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, associate professor, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, said in a prepared statement. “Extra care must be taken to ensure that expanding screening to younger ages does not negatively impact efforts to eliminate disparities in colorectal screening and outcomes nor jeopardize efforts to increase screening initiation among older adults who remain unscreened.”
 

Data analyzed from 8 years over 2 decades

The researchers analyzed data from the CDC’s cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey during 8 years over the past 2 decades: 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018.

The number of participants each year ranged from a low of 21,781 in 2008 to a high of 34,557 in 2013. After excluding participants with a history of colorectal cancer or missing information on screenings, the total population sample included 80,220 participants 50-75 years old.

The researchers considered a person as having been screened if they received at least one recommended screening test within the year covered by the survey, regardless of why they underwent the test.

Recommended tests included sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and stool-based tests for all survey years. In addition, the surveys for 2010, 2015, and 2018 included CT colonography, and the 2018 survey included FIT-DNA.
 

Screening across population groups

Colorectal cancer screening rates have doubled in the past 2 decades, from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018.

Rates are considerably lower, however, for several key groups, including the youngest group. Less than half (47.6%) of those aged 50-54 years received screenings in 2018, though this was still a nearly 20-point improvement over the 28.2% in this age group who were screened in 2000.

Separate from age, several other groups continue to have low screening rates in general, including Hispanics (56.5%, up from 25.9% in 2000), Asians (57.1%, up from 22.6% in 2000), those who have not received a high school degree (53.6%, up from 26.8% in 2000), and those from low income families (56.6%, up from 30.2% in 2000).

The group with the greatest need for more outreach and screenings are people without insurance, only 39.7% of whom were screened in 2018, a modest increase from 30.2% in 2000.

The biggest increase in screenings over time occurred in those aged 70-75 years, from 46.4% in 2000 to 78% in 2018 overall.

Racial/ethnic, economic, education, and insurance-based disparities were particularly evident the younger people were, including in terms of progress made over time.

For example, screenings of non-Hispanic White people aged 50-54 years improved 21 points (30.3% to 51%) between 2000 and 2018, compared with 19 points in Hispanics (16.7% to 35.5%) and 15 points in Asians (17.3% to 32.3%). Fortunately, Black Americans made even greater strides than White Americans with a 27-point increase during that time (23.4% to 50%). 

Similarly, income correlated with expansion in screening rates for 50- to 54-year-olds: Those earning at least 400% over the federal poverty line improved 20 points (from 33.5% to 53.8%), compared with a 16-point improvement in those earning less than 200% above the poverty line (from 19.3% to 35%).

Those with private insurance likewise improved 21 points (from 30.7% to 51.7%), while those in this age group without insurance declined, with just 21.2% getting screened in 2018, compared with 28.2% in 2000. Those on public insurance saw a 15-point improvement, from 27.8% in 2000 to 43.1% in 2018.

“The individual and societal burden of colorectal cancer is especially great among younger adults,” the authors wrote.

The reasons for the much lower prevalence of screening in those under 55, the authors suggested, is likely due to less concern about colorectal cancer, less access to medical care (including being underinsured or uninsured), and the barriers created by competing priorities, such as work schedules, family responsibilities, and caregiving. The latter may be particularly true in underserved populations, the authors noted.

“Screening programs must consider the barriers unique to younger adults, ensuring the benefits of screening are equally realized by all population groups,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. One author reported grants from Epigenomics and Freenome and personal fees from Guardant Health. Another author reported personal fees from Freenome, and a third author reported personal fees from Exact Sciences. No other authors had industry disclosures.

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

Adults younger than 55 years were least likely to get screened for colorectal cancer over the past 2 decades, particularly if they were Hispanic or Asian or had a low income, lower education level, or no health insurance, according to a new study published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The findings have raised concerns that disparities in screening rates will be even greater in adults aged 45-49 years, prompting the need for increased awareness and outreach to ensure that underserved groups have access to screenings.

“Differences in prevalence of screening by race and ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, and health insurance were most pronounced for those ages 50-54 years, whereas older adults experienced larger increases in prevalence across these groups,” wrote Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, a clinical investigator at Harvard University, Boston, and his colleagues. “The persistent and worsening disparities we observed in adults 50-54 years may extend to those ages 45-49 as they become eligible for screening.”

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shifted their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening in May 2021 to 5 years earlier, advising people to start screenings at 45 instead of 50, which aligns with the recommendations the American Cancer Society made 3 years earlier.

Both organizations made the change because of increasing rates of colorectal cancer in adults under age 50 and research indicating that beginning screenings at age 45 results in fewer cases, fewer deaths, and more life years gained.

“Across all age groups, colorectal cancer screening participation remains below national goals, and the benefits of screening are not equally realized across populations,” senior author Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, associate professor, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, said in a prepared statement. “Extra care must be taken to ensure that expanding screening to younger ages does not negatively impact efforts to eliminate disparities in colorectal screening and outcomes nor jeopardize efforts to increase screening initiation among older adults who remain unscreened.”
 

Data analyzed from 8 years over 2 decades

The researchers analyzed data from the CDC’s cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey during 8 years over the past 2 decades: 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018.

The number of participants each year ranged from a low of 21,781 in 2008 to a high of 34,557 in 2013. After excluding participants with a history of colorectal cancer or missing information on screenings, the total population sample included 80,220 participants 50-75 years old.

The researchers considered a person as having been screened if they received at least one recommended screening test within the year covered by the survey, regardless of why they underwent the test.

Recommended tests included sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and stool-based tests for all survey years. In addition, the surveys for 2010, 2015, and 2018 included CT colonography, and the 2018 survey included FIT-DNA.
 

Screening across population groups

Colorectal cancer screening rates have doubled in the past 2 decades, from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018.

Rates are considerably lower, however, for several key groups, including the youngest group. Less than half (47.6%) of those aged 50-54 years received screenings in 2018, though this was still a nearly 20-point improvement over the 28.2% in this age group who were screened in 2000.

Separate from age, several other groups continue to have low screening rates in general, including Hispanics (56.5%, up from 25.9% in 2000), Asians (57.1%, up from 22.6% in 2000), those who have not received a high school degree (53.6%, up from 26.8% in 2000), and those from low income families (56.6%, up from 30.2% in 2000).

The group with the greatest need for more outreach and screenings are people without insurance, only 39.7% of whom were screened in 2018, a modest increase from 30.2% in 2000.

The biggest increase in screenings over time occurred in those aged 70-75 years, from 46.4% in 2000 to 78% in 2018 overall.

Racial/ethnic, economic, education, and insurance-based disparities were particularly evident the younger people were, including in terms of progress made over time.

For example, screenings of non-Hispanic White people aged 50-54 years improved 21 points (30.3% to 51%) between 2000 and 2018, compared with 19 points in Hispanics (16.7% to 35.5%) and 15 points in Asians (17.3% to 32.3%). Fortunately, Black Americans made even greater strides than White Americans with a 27-point increase during that time (23.4% to 50%). 

Similarly, income correlated with expansion in screening rates for 50- to 54-year-olds: Those earning at least 400% over the federal poverty line improved 20 points (from 33.5% to 53.8%), compared with a 16-point improvement in those earning less than 200% above the poverty line (from 19.3% to 35%).

Those with private insurance likewise improved 21 points (from 30.7% to 51.7%), while those in this age group without insurance declined, with just 21.2% getting screened in 2018, compared with 28.2% in 2000. Those on public insurance saw a 15-point improvement, from 27.8% in 2000 to 43.1% in 2018.

“The individual and societal burden of colorectal cancer is especially great among younger adults,” the authors wrote.

The reasons for the much lower prevalence of screening in those under 55, the authors suggested, is likely due to less concern about colorectal cancer, less access to medical care (including being underinsured or uninsured), and the barriers created by competing priorities, such as work schedules, family responsibilities, and caregiving. The latter may be particularly true in underserved populations, the authors noted.

“Screening programs must consider the barriers unique to younger adults, ensuring the benefits of screening are equally realized by all population groups,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. One author reported grants from Epigenomics and Freenome and personal fees from Guardant Health. Another author reported personal fees from Freenome, and a third author reported personal fees from Exact Sciences. No other authors had industry disclosures.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today that the cancer drug duvelisib (Copiktra, Verastem), a PI3 kinase inhibitor, may increase the risk of death and serious side effects.

Duvelisib was approved in 2018 to treat adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had received at least two prior therapies that did not work or stopped working.

However, more recent 5-year overall survival results from the randomized phase 3 DUO clinical trial found a possible increased risk of death with duvelisib, compared with another drug used to treat leukemia and lymphoma, according to an FDA Drug Safety Communication.

“The trial also found Copiktra was associated with a higher risk of serious side effects, including infections, diarrhea, inflammation of the intestines and lungs, skin reactions, and high liver enzyme levels in the blood,” states the warning, which advises prescribers to weigh the risks and benefits of continued use versus use of other treatments.

More specifically, median 5-year overall survival among 319 patients with CLL or SLL in the DUO trial was 52.3 months with duvelisib versus 63.3 months with the monoclonal antibody ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 1.09 overall and 1.06 among patients who received at least two prior lines of therapy).

Serious adverse events of grade 3 or higher were also more common in those treated with duvelisib.

Of note, in April, the FDA also announced that it was withdrawing approval of the relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma indication for duvelisib following a voluntary request by the drug manufacturer Secura Bio.

A public meeting will be scheduled to discuss the findings of the trial and whether the drug should continue to be prescribed.

This FDA warning follows the agency’s June 1 withdrawal of approval for umbralisib (Ukoniq), another PI3 kinase inhibitor, following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

As reported by this news organization, umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

“These safety findings were similar for other medicines in the same PI3 kinase inhibitor class, which were discussed at an advisory committee meeting of non-FDA experts in April 2022,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA urges patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving duvelisib or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today that the cancer drug duvelisib (Copiktra, Verastem), a PI3 kinase inhibitor, may increase the risk of death and serious side effects.

Duvelisib was approved in 2018 to treat adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had received at least two prior therapies that did not work or stopped working.

However, more recent 5-year overall survival results from the randomized phase 3 DUO clinical trial found a possible increased risk of death with duvelisib, compared with another drug used to treat leukemia and lymphoma, according to an FDA Drug Safety Communication.

“The trial also found Copiktra was associated with a higher risk of serious side effects, including infections, diarrhea, inflammation of the intestines and lungs, skin reactions, and high liver enzyme levels in the blood,” states the warning, which advises prescribers to weigh the risks and benefits of continued use versus use of other treatments.

More specifically, median 5-year overall survival among 319 patients with CLL or SLL in the DUO trial was 52.3 months with duvelisib versus 63.3 months with the monoclonal antibody ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 1.09 overall and 1.06 among patients who received at least two prior lines of therapy).

Serious adverse events of grade 3 or higher were also more common in those treated with duvelisib.

Of note, in April, the FDA also announced that it was withdrawing approval of the relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma indication for duvelisib following a voluntary request by the drug manufacturer Secura Bio.

A public meeting will be scheduled to discuss the findings of the trial and whether the drug should continue to be prescribed.

This FDA warning follows the agency’s June 1 withdrawal of approval for umbralisib (Ukoniq), another PI3 kinase inhibitor, following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

As reported by this news organization, umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

“These safety findings were similar for other medicines in the same PI3 kinase inhibitor class, which were discussed at an advisory committee meeting of non-FDA experts in April 2022,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA urges patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving duvelisib or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today that the cancer drug duvelisib (Copiktra, Verastem), a PI3 kinase inhibitor, may increase the risk of death and serious side effects.

Duvelisib was approved in 2018 to treat adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had received at least two prior therapies that did not work or stopped working.

However, more recent 5-year overall survival results from the randomized phase 3 DUO clinical trial found a possible increased risk of death with duvelisib, compared with another drug used to treat leukemia and lymphoma, according to an FDA Drug Safety Communication.

“The trial also found Copiktra was associated with a higher risk of serious side effects, including infections, diarrhea, inflammation of the intestines and lungs, skin reactions, and high liver enzyme levels in the blood,” states the warning, which advises prescribers to weigh the risks and benefits of continued use versus use of other treatments.

More specifically, median 5-year overall survival among 319 patients with CLL or SLL in the DUO trial was 52.3 months with duvelisib versus 63.3 months with the monoclonal antibody ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 1.09 overall and 1.06 among patients who received at least two prior lines of therapy).

Serious adverse events of grade 3 or higher were also more common in those treated with duvelisib.

Of note, in April, the FDA also announced that it was withdrawing approval of the relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma indication for duvelisib following a voluntary request by the drug manufacturer Secura Bio.

A public meeting will be scheduled to discuss the findings of the trial and whether the drug should continue to be prescribed.

This FDA warning follows the agency’s June 1 withdrawal of approval for umbralisib (Ukoniq), another PI3 kinase inhibitor, following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

As reported by this news organization, umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

“These safety findings were similar for other medicines in the same PI3 kinase inhibitor class, which were discussed at an advisory committee meeting of non-FDA experts in April 2022,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA urges patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving duvelisib or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

LONDON – Around the world, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has driven an increase in deaths from liver cancer over the past decade, overtaking alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, according to an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

A global rise in liver cancer deaths and chronic liver disease reflects changes in underlying health patterns, said Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor and chair, department of medicine, Inova Fairfax Medical Campus, Falls Church, Va., who presented the analysis at the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2022.

“NAFLD and NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] are rapidly becoming the main causes of cirrhosis and liver cancer in the world,” Dr. Younossi told this news organization. “We have known about the increasing prevalence for some time, but now the outcomes in terms of mortality are catching up,” he said.

“The bottom line of this study is that the burden of this disease [NAFLD] is going up, and it will be the most important disease of the next decade or so,” he said, adding that “the largest annual percentage increase in rates of mortality from liver cancer or chronic liver disease cirrhosis is related to NAFLD.”

Specifically, during the decade of 2009-2019, the annual percent change (APC) of +1.33% in the global liver cancer death rate was driven by the fact that the APC for NAFLD was +2.47%. By comparison, the APC for alcoholic liver disease was +1.91%; for hepatitis B, the APC was +0.21%; and for hepatitis C, the APC was +1.12%.

Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant of hepatology and director of Odense Liver Research Centre at SDU and Odense University Hospital, Denmark, who chaired the session in which this presentation was a part, acknowledged the importance of recognizing the contribution of NAFLD to liver cancer mortality.

“Liver diseases are on the rise. They are the fastest rising cause of death in the United Kingdom, faster than heart disease and other cancers. NAFLD in particular is the fastest growing cause of liver cancer, and the leading cause in France and the United States,” he remarked.

Dr. Krag also highlighted the costs of disease management.

“Managing fatty liver disease in Europe is estimated at €35 billion in direct health care, so we need to do something now,” he stressed.

“The global burden of NAFLD is so high that we need both prevention and treatment tools,” Dr. Krag said. “Change to lifestyle is a ‘no-brainer’ and costs governments very little. For the sake of our young people, we need to take this very seriously. At a political level, we can easily implement this, for example, by banning junk food advertisements, but also educating young people and their families. Good drugs will also help.”
 

NAFLD: The liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes

About 25%-30% of the global population have NAFLD, and 3%-5% have NASH. Dr. Younossi highlighted that the U.S. transplant database shows that NAFLD was the second indication for all liver transplants in the country. NAFLD also was a leading cause of liver transplants for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

There are around two billion cases of chronic liver disease globally, he said. He noted that over time, there has been an increase in all kinds of liver diseases, as reflected in the annual percent change.

“The global epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes is driving the rise in NAFLD, but even among lean people, the prevalence of NAFLD is around 9%,” Dr. Younossi said. “Alongside the eye and kidney complications of diabetes, this is the liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes.”

To assess global liver disease and death, Dr. Younossi and his colleagues turned to the Global Burden of Disease Study, which gathered data from around 7,000 investigators located across 22 different regions of the world, comprising 156 countries.

They calculated the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in relation to liver cancer and chronic liver disease, including the APC. They linked the data to changes in four liver diseases: NAFLD, alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B infection, and hepatitis C infection.

The cases of NAFLD reported in the study had been diagnosed by ultrasound or other imaging. Importantly, the prevalence of NAFLD was adjusted for alcohol use in the various national populations, explained Dr. Younossi.

In 2019, they reported that globally, the overall prevalence of liver disease reached 1.69 billion (liver cancer, 0.04%; chronic liver disease, 99.96%), with an incidence of 2.59 million (liver cancer, 20.7%; chronic liver disease, 79.3%), mortality of 1.95 million (liver cancer, 24.8%; chronic liver disease, 75.3%), and DALYs of 58.7 million (liver cancer, 21.3%; chronic liver disease, 78.7%).

Between 2009 and 2019, deaths from liver cancer rose by 27.2%, and deaths from chronic liver disease rose by 10.6%. DALYs from liver cancer rose by 21.9%, and DALYs from chronic liver disease were up by 5.1%.

In contrast to the increase in liver cancer deaths, deaths from chronic liver disease decreased (APC, –0.18%). The decrease was driven by a decrease in hepatitis B (APC, –1.83%). APCs for hepatitis C (+0.37%), alcoholic liver disease (+0.45%), and NAFLD (+1.33%) increased.

“The burden of hepatitis B–related mortality has decreased because we have been so good at vaccinating people,” Dr. Younossi remarked.
 

NAFLD ‘exploding’ in Middle East, North Africa, and East Asia

The increase in NAFLD has been seen in all regions of the world, but a breakdown by region shows that NAFLD is primarily “exploding” with highest prevalence and mortality in the Middle East (mostly Egypt, Iran, and Turkey), North Africa, and East Asia, said Dr. Younossi. In addition, there are large increases in the West and South America.

“We knew that the prevalence was high in the Middle East, but we now know that mortality is also high, so we are connecting these data,” said Dr. Younossi.
 

Awareness lacking

Dr. Younossi pressed the fact that awareness among the general population, primary care providers, and policymakers is very low. “From my perspective, raising awareness of NAFLD is the number one priority, and that is the value of this study.”

He added that more people will become aware as testing becomes more manageable.

“There are some noninvasive tests being developed, so in the future, we won’t have to do liver biopsies to diagnose these patients,” he said. “Currently, there are some excellent treatments being developed.”

“The WHO [World Health Organization] does not mention NAFLD as an important noncommunicable disease, and this too has to change,” Dr. Younossi added.

Dr. Younossi has received research funds and/or has consulted for Abbott, Allergan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Genfit, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Madrigal, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Krag has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON – Around the world, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has driven an increase in deaths from liver cancer over the past decade, overtaking alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, according to an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

A global rise in liver cancer deaths and chronic liver disease reflects changes in underlying health patterns, said Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor and chair, department of medicine, Inova Fairfax Medical Campus, Falls Church, Va., who presented the analysis at the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2022.

“NAFLD and NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] are rapidly becoming the main causes of cirrhosis and liver cancer in the world,” Dr. Younossi told this news organization. “We have known about the increasing prevalence for some time, but now the outcomes in terms of mortality are catching up,” he said.

“The bottom line of this study is that the burden of this disease [NAFLD] is going up, and it will be the most important disease of the next decade or so,” he said, adding that “the largest annual percentage increase in rates of mortality from liver cancer or chronic liver disease cirrhosis is related to NAFLD.”

Specifically, during the decade of 2009-2019, the annual percent change (APC) of +1.33% in the global liver cancer death rate was driven by the fact that the APC for NAFLD was +2.47%. By comparison, the APC for alcoholic liver disease was +1.91%; for hepatitis B, the APC was +0.21%; and for hepatitis C, the APC was +1.12%.

Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant of hepatology and director of Odense Liver Research Centre at SDU and Odense University Hospital, Denmark, who chaired the session in which this presentation was a part, acknowledged the importance of recognizing the contribution of NAFLD to liver cancer mortality.

“Liver diseases are on the rise. They are the fastest rising cause of death in the United Kingdom, faster than heart disease and other cancers. NAFLD in particular is the fastest growing cause of liver cancer, and the leading cause in France and the United States,” he remarked.

Dr. Krag also highlighted the costs of disease management.

“Managing fatty liver disease in Europe is estimated at €35 billion in direct health care, so we need to do something now,” he stressed.

“The global burden of NAFLD is so high that we need both prevention and treatment tools,” Dr. Krag said. “Change to lifestyle is a ‘no-brainer’ and costs governments very little. For the sake of our young people, we need to take this very seriously. At a political level, we can easily implement this, for example, by banning junk food advertisements, but also educating young people and their families. Good drugs will also help.”
 

NAFLD: The liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes

About 25%-30% of the global population have NAFLD, and 3%-5% have NASH. Dr. Younossi highlighted that the U.S. transplant database shows that NAFLD was the second indication for all liver transplants in the country. NAFLD also was a leading cause of liver transplants for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

There are around two billion cases of chronic liver disease globally, he said. He noted that over time, there has been an increase in all kinds of liver diseases, as reflected in the annual percent change.

“The global epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes is driving the rise in NAFLD, but even among lean people, the prevalence of NAFLD is around 9%,” Dr. Younossi said. “Alongside the eye and kidney complications of diabetes, this is the liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes.”

To assess global liver disease and death, Dr. Younossi and his colleagues turned to the Global Burden of Disease Study, which gathered data from around 7,000 investigators located across 22 different regions of the world, comprising 156 countries.

They calculated the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in relation to liver cancer and chronic liver disease, including the APC. They linked the data to changes in four liver diseases: NAFLD, alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B infection, and hepatitis C infection.

The cases of NAFLD reported in the study had been diagnosed by ultrasound or other imaging. Importantly, the prevalence of NAFLD was adjusted for alcohol use in the various national populations, explained Dr. Younossi.

In 2019, they reported that globally, the overall prevalence of liver disease reached 1.69 billion (liver cancer, 0.04%; chronic liver disease, 99.96%), with an incidence of 2.59 million (liver cancer, 20.7%; chronic liver disease, 79.3%), mortality of 1.95 million (liver cancer, 24.8%; chronic liver disease, 75.3%), and DALYs of 58.7 million (liver cancer, 21.3%; chronic liver disease, 78.7%).

Between 2009 and 2019, deaths from liver cancer rose by 27.2%, and deaths from chronic liver disease rose by 10.6%. DALYs from liver cancer rose by 21.9%, and DALYs from chronic liver disease were up by 5.1%.

In contrast to the increase in liver cancer deaths, deaths from chronic liver disease decreased (APC, –0.18%). The decrease was driven by a decrease in hepatitis B (APC, –1.83%). APCs for hepatitis C (+0.37%), alcoholic liver disease (+0.45%), and NAFLD (+1.33%) increased.

“The burden of hepatitis B–related mortality has decreased because we have been so good at vaccinating people,” Dr. Younossi remarked.
 

NAFLD ‘exploding’ in Middle East, North Africa, and East Asia

The increase in NAFLD has been seen in all regions of the world, but a breakdown by region shows that NAFLD is primarily “exploding” with highest prevalence and mortality in the Middle East (mostly Egypt, Iran, and Turkey), North Africa, and East Asia, said Dr. Younossi. In addition, there are large increases in the West and South America.

“We knew that the prevalence was high in the Middle East, but we now know that mortality is also high, so we are connecting these data,” said Dr. Younossi.
 

Awareness lacking

Dr. Younossi pressed the fact that awareness among the general population, primary care providers, and policymakers is very low. “From my perspective, raising awareness of NAFLD is the number one priority, and that is the value of this study.”

He added that more people will become aware as testing becomes more manageable.

“There are some noninvasive tests being developed, so in the future, we won’t have to do liver biopsies to diagnose these patients,” he said. “Currently, there are some excellent treatments being developed.”

“The WHO [World Health Organization] does not mention NAFLD as an important noncommunicable disease, and this too has to change,” Dr. Younossi added.

Dr. Younossi has received research funds and/or has consulted for Abbott, Allergan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Genfit, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Madrigal, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Krag has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON – Around the world, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has driven an increase in deaths from liver cancer over the past decade, overtaking alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, according to an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

A global rise in liver cancer deaths and chronic liver disease reflects changes in underlying health patterns, said Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor and chair, department of medicine, Inova Fairfax Medical Campus, Falls Church, Va., who presented the analysis at the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2022.

“NAFLD and NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] are rapidly becoming the main causes of cirrhosis and liver cancer in the world,” Dr. Younossi told this news organization. “We have known about the increasing prevalence for some time, but now the outcomes in terms of mortality are catching up,” he said.

“The bottom line of this study is that the burden of this disease [NAFLD] is going up, and it will be the most important disease of the next decade or so,” he said, adding that “the largest annual percentage increase in rates of mortality from liver cancer or chronic liver disease cirrhosis is related to NAFLD.”

Specifically, during the decade of 2009-2019, the annual percent change (APC) of +1.33% in the global liver cancer death rate was driven by the fact that the APC for NAFLD was +2.47%. By comparison, the APC for alcoholic liver disease was +1.91%; for hepatitis B, the APC was +0.21%; and for hepatitis C, the APC was +1.12%.

Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and senior consultant of hepatology and director of Odense Liver Research Centre at SDU and Odense University Hospital, Denmark, who chaired the session in which this presentation was a part, acknowledged the importance of recognizing the contribution of NAFLD to liver cancer mortality.

“Liver diseases are on the rise. They are the fastest rising cause of death in the United Kingdom, faster than heart disease and other cancers. NAFLD in particular is the fastest growing cause of liver cancer, and the leading cause in France and the United States,” he remarked.

Dr. Krag also highlighted the costs of disease management.

“Managing fatty liver disease in Europe is estimated at €35 billion in direct health care, so we need to do something now,” he stressed.

“The global burden of NAFLD is so high that we need both prevention and treatment tools,” Dr. Krag said. “Change to lifestyle is a ‘no-brainer’ and costs governments very little. For the sake of our young people, we need to take this very seriously. At a political level, we can easily implement this, for example, by banning junk food advertisements, but also educating young people and their families. Good drugs will also help.”
 

NAFLD: The liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes

About 25%-30% of the global population have NAFLD, and 3%-5% have NASH. Dr. Younossi highlighted that the U.S. transplant database shows that NAFLD was the second indication for all liver transplants in the country. NAFLD also was a leading cause of liver transplants for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

There are around two billion cases of chronic liver disease globally, he said. He noted that over time, there has been an increase in all kinds of liver diseases, as reflected in the annual percent change.

“The global epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes is driving the rise in NAFLD, but even among lean people, the prevalence of NAFLD is around 9%,” Dr. Younossi said. “Alongside the eye and kidney complications of diabetes, this is the liver manifestation of type 2 diabetes.”

To assess global liver disease and death, Dr. Younossi and his colleagues turned to the Global Burden of Disease Study, which gathered data from around 7,000 investigators located across 22 different regions of the world, comprising 156 countries.

They calculated the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in relation to liver cancer and chronic liver disease, including the APC. They linked the data to changes in four liver diseases: NAFLD, alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B infection, and hepatitis C infection.

The cases of NAFLD reported in the study had been diagnosed by ultrasound or other imaging. Importantly, the prevalence of NAFLD was adjusted for alcohol use in the various national populations, explained Dr. Younossi.

In 2019, they reported that globally, the overall prevalence of liver disease reached 1.69 billion (liver cancer, 0.04%; chronic liver disease, 99.96%), with an incidence of 2.59 million (liver cancer, 20.7%; chronic liver disease, 79.3%), mortality of 1.95 million (liver cancer, 24.8%; chronic liver disease, 75.3%), and DALYs of 58.7 million (liver cancer, 21.3%; chronic liver disease, 78.7%).

Between 2009 and 2019, deaths from liver cancer rose by 27.2%, and deaths from chronic liver disease rose by 10.6%. DALYs from liver cancer rose by 21.9%, and DALYs from chronic liver disease were up by 5.1%.

In contrast to the increase in liver cancer deaths, deaths from chronic liver disease decreased (APC, –0.18%). The decrease was driven by a decrease in hepatitis B (APC, –1.83%). APCs for hepatitis C (+0.37%), alcoholic liver disease (+0.45%), and NAFLD (+1.33%) increased.

“The burden of hepatitis B–related mortality has decreased because we have been so good at vaccinating people,” Dr. Younossi remarked.
 

NAFLD ‘exploding’ in Middle East, North Africa, and East Asia

The increase in NAFLD has been seen in all regions of the world, but a breakdown by region shows that NAFLD is primarily “exploding” with highest prevalence and mortality in the Middle East (mostly Egypt, Iran, and Turkey), North Africa, and East Asia, said Dr. Younossi. In addition, there are large increases in the West and South America.

“We knew that the prevalence was high in the Middle East, but we now know that mortality is also high, so we are connecting these data,” said Dr. Younossi.
 

Awareness lacking

Dr. Younossi pressed the fact that awareness among the general population, primary care providers, and policymakers is very low. “From my perspective, raising awareness of NAFLD is the number one priority, and that is the value of this study.”

He added that more people will become aware as testing becomes more manageable.

“There are some noninvasive tests being developed, so in the future, we won’t have to do liver biopsies to diagnose these patients,” he said. “Currently, there are some excellent treatments being developed.”

“The WHO [World Health Organization] does not mention NAFLD as an important noncommunicable disease, and this too has to change,” Dr. Younossi added.

Dr. Younossi has received research funds and/or has consulted for Abbott, Allergan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Genfit, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Madrigal, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Krag has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

Case Presentation

Case 1

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

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

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

Case 2

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

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

Case Presentation

Case 1

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

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

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

Case 2

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

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

Case Presentation

Case 1

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

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

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

Case 2

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Nature. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practice changing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Nature. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practice changing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in Nature. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practice changing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No study funding was received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No study funding was received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No study funding was received.