AVAHO

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

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

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

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

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

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

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

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

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

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

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

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

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

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

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

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

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

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

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

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

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

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

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

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

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

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

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

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

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

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

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

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

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

A first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

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

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

A possible new standard of care in breast cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving outcomes in multiple myeloma

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

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

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

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

Adagrasib promising for pretreated patients with NSCLC with KRAS mutation

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

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

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy for NSCLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do when a patient presents with resectable disease?

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, ASCO 2023 will provide more answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randomized trial pits AI against standard procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randomized trial pits AI against standard procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randomized trial pits AI against standard procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible benefit for older adults?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible benefit for older adults?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible benefit for older adults?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.

It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.

Every year in the United States, hospitals and practices discard substantial quantities of expensive oncology drugs.

The reason boils down to inefficient drug packaging. Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.

Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.

But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?

Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.

“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.

The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”

In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.  

What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.

“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
 

Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste

Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.

The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.

Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.

Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.

Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.

Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.

“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
 

The problem with recouping drug waste

Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.

Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.

In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.

However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.

According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.

The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.

“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.

Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.

That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.

The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.

But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.

“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.

And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.

But neither is a reality.

For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.

Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.

“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
 

Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?

Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.

Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.

“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.

A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.

“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
 

Does dose rounding work?

Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.

She also thinks a lot about costs.

“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.

One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.

If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.

At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.

Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.

A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.

And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.

“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
 

Nibbling around the edges

Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.

Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”

And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.

“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.

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

Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.

It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.

Every year in the United States, hospitals and practices discard substantial quantities of expensive oncology drugs.

The reason boils down to inefficient drug packaging. Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.

Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.

But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?

Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.

“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.

The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”

In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.  

What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.

“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
 

Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste

Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.

The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.

Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.

Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.

Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.

Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.

“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
 

The problem with recouping drug waste

Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.

Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.

In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.

However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.

According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.

The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.

“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.

Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.

That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.

The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.

But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.

“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.

And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.

But neither is a reality.

For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.

Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.

“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
 

Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?

Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.

Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.

“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.

A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.

“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
 

Does dose rounding work?

Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.

She also thinks a lot about costs.

“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.

One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.

If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.

At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.

Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.

A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.

And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.

“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
 

Nibbling around the edges

Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.

Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”

And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.

“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.

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

Three billion dollars: It’s enough to finance the annual out-of-pocket costs for 1 in 7 patients with cancer. It would cover almost half of the National Cancer Institute’s annual budget. And it could fund President Biden’s entire Cancer Moonshot program, with more than a billion to spare.

It’s also how much the United States spends on unused cancer drugs each year, some experts estimate.

Every year in the United States, hospitals and practices discard substantial quantities of expensive oncology drugs.

The reason boils down to inefficient drug packaging. Drug companies typically sell infused drugs in one or two single-dose vial sizes, but patients don’t come in such neat packages. A patient may need 300 mg of a drug that is only sold as 200 mg vials, which means half of a vial will go to waste.

Although most oncology drugs don’t incur substantial waste, even small volumes can translate to millions of dollars a year.

But can this money be saved or reallocated, if only we delivered drugs more efficiently?

Some experts don’t believe that’s possible.

“Attempts to recoup money for discarded drugs wouldn’t happen in a vacuum,” said Robin Yabroff, PhD, MBA, an epidemiologist and scientific vice president of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, who was part of a committee commissioned to evaluate the costs associated with discarded drugs.

The potential catch of any widespread effort to seek repayment or reduce the amount of discarded drugs, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues note, is that manufacturers would “simply increase the price of the vial.”

In other words, attempting to fix one problem may lead to another — essentially a whack-a-mole of cancer costs, which are projected to balloon to $246 billion by 2030.  

What this means is without sweeping policies to rein in cancer care costs, oncologists can only do so much. And every little bit counts.

“We are left chipping away at this monster of cancer care costs,” said Adam Binder, MD, a medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.
 

Millions spent on “reasonable amount” of waste

Michal Sarfaty, MD, was excited when enfortumab vedotin came on the market to treat advanced urothelial cancer in late 2019.

The cost of the drug, however, tempered her enthusiasm.

Enfortumab vedotin is a “great drug,” said Dr. Sarfaty, an oncologist at the Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. But it can cost upwards of $500,000 a year for an average-weight man.

Given the expense, Dr. Sarfaty wanted to understand how much of the drug gets thrown away. During a fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Sarfaty explored the amount of unused enfortumab vedotin among the 64 patients who received the drug in 2020. She, along with a team at MSK, calculated the price tag of that waste and extrapolated those estimates for patients across the country.

Although waste occurred in almost half of administered doses (367 of 793), only a small volume got discarded — 2.9% per dose, on average.

Multiplying unused milligrams by the cost per milligram, Dr. Sarfaty and colleagues estimated that, for each patient, $3,127 of the drug got discarded. When calculated over the year, the cost came to just over $200,000 at MSK, and nearly $15 million when projected across the approved patient population in the United States.

“Ultimately, we did not see a lot of waste with this specific drug,” Dr. Sarfaty said. “Under 2.9% is considered a reasonable amount, below the 3% threshold Peter Bach, MD, and colleagues recommend. But even with this small amount of waste, the cost per patient and to the system remains notable.”
 

The problem with recouping drug waste

Estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which tracks costs associated with discarded weight-based drugs covered under Medicare Part B, support the notion that small quantities of discarded drugs can still translate to big bucks.

Since 2017, CMS has required healthcare providers to report the volume of drugs discarded from a single-dose vial using a code, known as the JW modifier. The JW modifier means that providers can be reimbursed for the entire vial amount, not just the quantity the patient used.

In 2019, claims data from Medicare Part B showed that 1.85% of discarded rituximab came to $33.3 million. For infliximab, the 1.55% of discarded liquid translated to $15 million, and just 0.36% of discarded pembrolizumab reached $10 million.

However, experts question whether the JW modifier accurately reflects the quantity of drugs discarded.

According to the 2021 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), most physicians don’t use the JW modifier. Among Medicare claims, 16.2% included the JW modifier in 2017 and 16.9% did in 2018.

The rate was significantly lower for private insurance. Of more than 4 million private insurance claims on 77 drugs made in 2017 and 2018, only 3.6% included the JW modifier; 15 of these drugs had no JW claims.

“Although we found that most physicians don’t use the JW modifier, even those who do, don’t use it consistently, even for the same patient,” said Dr. Yabroff, a co-author on the report.

Going a step further, Dr. Yabroff and colleagues argue that even if everyone used the JW modifier as intended, manufacturers would probably increase the price of drugs to compensate for any loss, potentially eliminating savings for payers.

That’s because, in the United States, manufacturers typically base drug prices on a patient and payers’ “willingness to pay for better health,” not on the volume of liquid used. Take a patient who pays $2,000 to receive the dose they need. If that dose is 600 mg but requires using two vials of 400 mg, then “to the patient, the 600-mg dose is worth $2,000, and the remainder has no value whatsoever,” the NASEM authors argue.

The authors parallel this scenario to purchasing a designer coat or dress. If that item requires alterations that remove a section of material, “the customer does not typically get a rebate because all the fabric was not needed,” the NASEM team writes.

But there’s a flaw in this rationale, argues Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. A person’s willingness to pay for better health assumes that the price of a drug is based on proper market forces, where a drug’s cost and its effectiveness are in harmony.

“The problem is we’re operating in a broken market where the prices of oncology drugs have no real bearing on their efficacy,” said Dr. Goldstein.

And, as Dr. Bach noted in a 2021 Health Affairs piece, willingness to pay also requires that consumers know what they’re paying and allows them to walk away from an excessively high price.

But neither is a reality.

For one, Dr. Bach explains, companies may lowball the monthly price of a drug. In 2020, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that its new drug Blenrep would carry a list price of $8,277 per vial, or about $23,900 per month for an average 79 kg (175 lb) patient. That price accounts for two vials of the drug. But, according to Dr. Bach, “what GSK left out is that 44% of U.S. adults weigh more than 80 kg, and above that weight, three vials are needed per dose.” That would raise the average monthly cost to $30,479.

Perhaps more importantly, consumers can’t easily walk away.

“Medicare can’t negotiate prices and is forced to pay what a drug company says,” Dr. Goldstein said. “This is very different to when I buy a coat. If the price is too high, I can walk away.”
 

Fixed dosing: A solution or a new problem?

Efforts to reduce the financial impact of discarded cancer drugs can blow back on physicians, patients, and payers in other unanticipated ways. Take fixed dosing. Although chemotherapy dosing remains weight-based, many targeted therapies — such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab — recently transitioned to a fixed dosing regimen.

Administering a fixed, instead of weight-based, dose eliminates waste but can create new problems.

“Patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” said Dr. Goldstein. In a 2017 analysis, Dr. Goldstein and colleagues compared dosing strategies in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received pembrolizumab. The team found that the total annual cost of weight-based dosing was $2.6 billion, whereas the cost of the fixed dosing strategy was $3.44 billion — 24% more. In other words, personalized weight-based dosing would save more than $825 million dollars in the United States each year.

A 2020 analysis based in France found a similar cost increase of 26% for fixed dosing of pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab.

“I’ve argued we should go back to weight-based dosing,” Dr. Goldstein said. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”
 

Does dose rounding work?

Rose DiMarco, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP, keeps a tight watch on patients being treated at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health in Philadelphia.

Dr. DiMarco educates patients about their treatment plan, reviews their lab results, and monitors them for side effects and drug interactions.

She also thinks a lot about costs.

“We spend about $100,000 a day on oncology drugs, and we want to make sure we’re not being wasteful,” Dr. DiMarco said in an interview.

One major initiative to curb waste and reduce costs at Jefferson has centered on dose rounding, which calculates whether a specific dose can be altered slightly to conserve vials and prevent waste. According to the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association, a patient can receive up to 10% more or less of a weight-based dose without impacting treatment efficacy.

If, for instance, a patient requires 380 mg, but two vials come to 400 mg, rounding up that dose by approximately 5% means eliminating 20 mg that would go unused. But if that patient requires 420 mg, rounding down about 5% means substantial savings from not opening a new vial.

At Jefferson, Dr. DiMarco and her pharmacy colleagues map out dose ranges for all patients. Anyone who falls inside the 10% may be eligible for dose rounding. Anyone who doesn’t will receive the usual dose.

Although it is a challenge to implement, dose rounding has become standard of care at many cancer centers across the United States and is linked to substantial savings.

A 2018 analysis projected annual savings of $865,000 associated with rounding down eight monoclonal antibodies for patients with metastatic disease at a community cancer center. A more recent analysis from the Mayo Clinic found that dose rounding saved a total of 9,814 drug vials — 4485 of which were cancer drugs and 5329 of which were biologics — and resulted in $7.3 million in savings over 6 months in 2019 — $1.56 million from oncology agents and $5.7 from biologics.

And in a small 2019 analysis, researchers at Jefferson showed dose rounding of one monoclonal antibody saved approximately $30,000 in just 3 months, Dr. DiMarco noted.

“Not only does this process reduce costs and waste, but it also standardizes the preparation of hazardous medications, which can help prevent medication errors,” Dr. DiMarco said.
 

Nibbling around the edges

Despite estimates that scale into the billions of dollars, “drug wastage is just a small part of overall cancer costs,” Dr. Sarfaty said.

Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at MSK, agrees. “When we talk about affordability and cost, we can nibble around the edges of what’s really important,” Dr. Chino said. “Discarded drugs may cost a lot when you consider them in aggregate, but they are not as important as negotiated drug prices, which could substantially reduce overall costs.”

And until drug prices are addressed on a broader policy level, the cost of cancer care likely won’t improve in a meaningful way.

“But for the patient sitting in front of me, my focus will always be to provide the best care possible,” Dr. Binder said.

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

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

Over the past decade, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved new cancer drugs twice as fast as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), often using accelerated pathways, a new analysis shows.

Between 2010 and 2019, the FDA approved almost all oncology therapies ahead of the EMA. Drugs entered the United States market about 8 months (241 days) before European market authorization.

But do quicker review times translate to wins for patients?

“The faster FDA approval process potentially provides earlier access to potentially life-prolonging medications for patients with cancer in the United States,” Ali Raza Khaki, MD, department of oncology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization. “On the surface, this is a good thing. However, it comes with limitations.”

Earlier drug approval often means greater uncertainty about an agent’s benefit – most notably, whether it will improve a patient’s survival or quality of life. Dr. Khaki pointed to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, which found that only 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drugs that had been recently approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway demonstrated an improvement in overall survival.

In the new study, published online in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Khaki and colleagues found that among the 89 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between January 2010 and December 2019, the FDA approved 85 (95%) before European authorization and four (5%) after.

The researchers found that the median FDA review time was half that of the EMA’s (200 vs. 426 days). Furthermore, 64 new drug applications (72%) were submitted to the FDA first, compared with 21 (23%) to the EMA.

Of the drugs approved through an accelerated pathway, three were ultimately pulled from the U.S. market, compared with one in Europe.

“These early drug approvals that later lead to withdrawal expose many more patients to toxicity, including financial toxicity, given the high cost of cancer medications,” Dr. Khaki commented.

In addition, 35 oncology therapies (39%) were approved by the FDA before trial results were published, compared with only eight (9%) by the EMA. Although FDA drug labels contain some information about efficacy and toxicity, scientific publications often have much more, including details about study populations and toxicities.

“Without this information, providers may be limited in their knowledge about patient selection, clinical benefit, and optimal toxicity management,” Dr. Khaki said.

Jeff Allen PhD, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research, who wasn’t involved in the study, believes that an FDA approval before publication shouldn’t be “particularly concerning.”

“Peer-reviewed publication is an important component of validating and communicating scientific findings, but the processes and time lines for individual journals can be highly variable,” he said. “I don’t think we would want to see a situation where potential beneficial treatments are held up due to unrelated publication processes.”

The author of an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open had a different take on the study findings.

“A tempting interpretation” of this study is that the FDA is a “superior agency for expedited review times that bring cancer drugs to patients earlier,” Kristina Jenei, BSN, MSc, with the University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health, writes. In addition, the fact that more drugs were pulled from the market after approval in the United States than in Europe could be interpreted to mean that the system is working as it should.

Although the speed of FDA reviews and the number of subsequent approvals have increased over time, the proportion of cancer drugs that improve survival has declined. In addition, because the FDA’s follow-up of postmarketing studies has been “inconsistent,” a substantial number of cancer drugs that were approved through accelerated pathways have remained on the market for years without confirmation of their benefit.

Although regulatory agencies must balance earlier patient access to novel treatments with evidence that the therapies are effective and safe, “faster review times and approvals are not cause for celebration; better patient outcomes are,” Ms. Jenei writes. “In other words, quality over quantity.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khaki reported stock ownership from Merck and stock ownership from Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Allen and Ms. Jenei have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past decade, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved new cancer drugs twice as fast as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), often using accelerated pathways, a new analysis shows.

Between 2010 and 2019, the FDA approved almost all oncology therapies ahead of the EMA. Drugs entered the United States market about 8 months (241 days) before European market authorization.

But do quicker review times translate to wins for patients?

“The faster FDA approval process potentially provides earlier access to potentially life-prolonging medications for patients with cancer in the United States,” Ali Raza Khaki, MD, department of oncology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization. “On the surface, this is a good thing. However, it comes with limitations.”

Earlier drug approval often means greater uncertainty about an agent’s benefit – most notably, whether it will improve a patient’s survival or quality of life. Dr. Khaki pointed to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, which found that only 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drugs that had been recently approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway demonstrated an improvement in overall survival.

In the new study, published online in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Khaki and colleagues found that among the 89 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between January 2010 and December 2019, the FDA approved 85 (95%) before European authorization and four (5%) after.

The researchers found that the median FDA review time was half that of the EMA’s (200 vs. 426 days). Furthermore, 64 new drug applications (72%) were submitted to the FDA first, compared with 21 (23%) to the EMA.

Of the drugs approved through an accelerated pathway, three were ultimately pulled from the U.S. market, compared with one in Europe.

“These early drug approvals that later lead to withdrawal expose many more patients to toxicity, including financial toxicity, given the high cost of cancer medications,” Dr. Khaki commented.

In addition, 35 oncology therapies (39%) were approved by the FDA before trial results were published, compared with only eight (9%) by the EMA. Although FDA drug labels contain some information about efficacy and toxicity, scientific publications often have much more, including details about study populations and toxicities.

“Without this information, providers may be limited in their knowledge about patient selection, clinical benefit, and optimal toxicity management,” Dr. Khaki said.

Jeff Allen PhD, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research, who wasn’t involved in the study, believes that an FDA approval before publication shouldn’t be “particularly concerning.”

“Peer-reviewed publication is an important component of validating and communicating scientific findings, but the processes and time lines for individual journals can be highly variable,” he said. “I don’t think we would want to see a situation where potential beneficial treatments are held up due to unrelated publication processes.”

The author of an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open had a different take on the study findings.

“A tempting interpretation” of this study is that the FDA is a “superior agency for expedited review times that bring cancer drugs to patients earlier,” Kristina Jenei, BSN, MSc, with the University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health, writes. In addition, the fact that more drugs were pulled from the market after approval in the United States than in Europe could be interpreted to mean that the system is working as it should.

Although the speed of FDA reviews and the number of subsequent approvals have increased over time, the proportion of cancer drugs that improve survival has declined. In addition, because the FDA’s follow-up of postmarketing studies has been “inconsistent,” a substantial number of cancer drugs that were approved through accelerated pathways have remained on the market for years without confirmation of their benefit.

Although regulatory agencies must balance earlier patient access to novel treatments with evidence that the therapies are effective and safe, “faster review times and approvals are not cause for celebration; better patient outcomes are,” Ms. Jenei writes. “In other words, quality over quantity.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khaki reported stock ownership from Merck and stock ownership from Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Allen and Ms. Jenei have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over the past decade, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved new cancer drugs twice as fast as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), often using accelerated pathways, a new analysis shows.

Between 2010 and 2019, the FDA approved almost all oncology therapies ahead of the EMA. Drugs entered the United States market about 8 months (241 days) before European market authorization.

But do quicker review times translate to wins for patients?

“The faster FDA approval process potentially provides earlier access to potentially life-prolonging medications for patients with cancer in the United States,” Ali Raza Khaki, MD, department of oncology, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization. “On the surface, this is a good thing. However, it comes with limitations.”

Earlier drug approval often means greater uncertainty about an agent’s benefit – most notably, whether it will improve a patient’s survival or quality of life. Dr. Khaki pointed to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, which found that only 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drugs that had been recently approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway demonstrated an improvement in overall survival.

In the new study, published online in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Khaki and colleagues found that among the 89 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between January 2010 and December 2019, the FDA approved 85 (95%) before European authorization and four (5%) after.

The researchers found that the median FDA review time was half that of the EMA’s (200 vs. 426 days). Furthermore, 64 new drug applications (72%) were submitted to the FDA first, compared with 21 (23%) to the EMA.

Of the drugs approved through an accelerated pathway, three were ultimately pulled from the U.S. market, compared with one in Europe.

“These early drug approvals that later lead to withdrawal expose many more patients to toxicity, including financial toxicity, given the high cost of cancer medications,” Dr. Khaki commented.

In addition, 35 oncology therapies (39%) were approved by the FDA before trial results were published, compared with only eight (9%) by the EMA. Although FDA drug labels contain some information about efficacy and toxicity, scientific publications often have much more, including details about study populations and toxicities.

“Without this information, providers may be limited in their knowledge about patient selection, clinical benefit, and optimal toxicity management,” Dr. Khaki said.

Jeff Allen PhD, president and CEO of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research, who wasn’t involved in the study, believes that an FDA approval before publication shouldn’t be “particularly concerning.”

“Peer-reviewed publication is an important component of validating and communicating scientific findings, but the processes and time lines for individual journals can be highly variable,” he said. “I don’t think we would want to see a situation where potential beneficial treatments are held up due to unrelated publication processes.”

The author of an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open had a different take on the study findings.

“A tempting interpretation” of this study is that the FDA is a “superior agency for expedited review times that bring cancer drugs to patients earlier,” Kristina Jenei, BSN, MSc, with the University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health, writes. In addition, the fact that more drugs were pulled from the market after approval in the United States than in Europe could be interpreted to mean that the system is working as it should.

Although the speed of FDA reviews and the number of subsequent approvals have increased over time, the proportion of cancer drugs that improve survival has declined. In addition, because the FDA’s follow-up of postmarketing studies has been “inconsistent,” a substantial number of cancer drugs that were approved through accelerated pathways have remained on the market for years without confirmation of their benefit.

Although regulatory agencies must balance earlier patient access to novel treatments with evidence that the therapies are effective and safe, “faster review times and approvals are not cause for celebration; better patient outcomes are,” Ms. Jenei writes. “In other words, quality over quantity.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Khaki reported stock ownership from Merck and stock ownership from Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Allen and Ms. Jenei have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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