AVAHO

As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.

In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.

“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”

That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.

Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.

When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”

Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.

Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
 

When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly

Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.

The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.

In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.

She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.

The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.

The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.

She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.

Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.

Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.

Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.

“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.

“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.

“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”

Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.

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

As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.

In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.

“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”

That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.

Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.

When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”

Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.

Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
 

When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly

Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.

The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.

In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.

She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.

The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.

The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.

She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.

Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.

Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.

Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.

“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.

“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.

“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”

Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.

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

As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.

In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.

“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”

That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.

Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.

When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”

Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.

Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
 

When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly

Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.

The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.

In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.

She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.

The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.

The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.

She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.

Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.

Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.

Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.

“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.

“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.

“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”

Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.

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

A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the treatment not only reduces fractures long-term, but it may also improve overall survival and increase bone density.

The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.

Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.

ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.

The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.

The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.

Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).

There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.

Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).

In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.

“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.

A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.

A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the treatment not only reduces fractures long-term, but it may also improve overall survival and increase bone density.

The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.

Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.

ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.

The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.

The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.

Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).

There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.

Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).

In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.

“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.

A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.

A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the treatment not only reduces fractures long-term, but it may also improve overall survival and increase bone density.

The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.

Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.

ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.

The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.

The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.

Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).

There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.

Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).

In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.

“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.

A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma responded positively to a new therapy based on genome editing in early results from a phase 1 study, according to a news release from manufacturer Caribou Biosciences.

In the first-in-human, phase 1 open-label study, known as ANTLER, 5 out of 5 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r B-NHL) responded to a single dose of CB-010, an allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy designed to boost antitumor activity, according to the company.

The use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy involves taking T cells out of the body, reprogramming them with CAR to better equip them to kill cancer cells, and putting them back into the body.

The study consists of two sections: an initial dose escalation following a 3 + 3 design, with prespecified, increasing doses, followed by an expanded trial in which all patients receive CB-010 at the dose determined in the first section.

The study population included 6 adults with r/r B-NHL who had relapsed after previous treatment with a median of 3 prior therapies. At baseline, all 6 patients underwent a lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg/day for 2 days, followed by 5 days of fludarabine at 25 mg/m²/day.

Then all patients received a single dose of 40x106 CAR-T cells. As of the Feb. 23, 2022, data cutoff date, 5 of the 6 patients had completed the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. All 5 patients (100%) achieved a response; 4 achieved complete response and 1 achieved partial response. All 4 of the complete responders had ongoing complete response at 3 months, and the longest measured complete response was 6 months, according to the company.

“We are excited to see a 100% overall response rate with CB-010 at dose level 1 for these patients who have limited treatment options,” said Dr. Syed Rizvi, chief medical officer for Caribou Biosciences, in the press release. “We believe this initial level of activity is unparalleled for a single, starting dose of cell therapy. CB-010 was generally well-tolerated, with adverse events routinely observed in autologous or allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies,” he said.

Based on the promising safety and efficacy results, the company is enrolling patients in a second cohort for treatment at dose level 2 (80x106 CAR-T cells), according to the news release.

Another allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy known as ALLO-501A is being studied in a similar trial conducted by the Moffitt Cancer Center.

Overall, CB-010 was well-tolerated, according to Caribou Biosciences. No cases of graft-versus-host disease were reported. A total of 3 patients developed grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) within the first 28 days; the most common were neutropenia (50%), thrombocytopenia (33%), anemia (17%), and hypogammaglobulinemia (17%). One patient experienced both grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and grade 3 Immune effector cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). This response was characterized as a dose-limiting toxicity. The patient was treated with tocilizumab and steroids, recovered within 39 hours, and went on to achieve a complete response, according to the company.

Although the safety profile in the current study was promising, prior research suggest that concerns associated with CRS and ICANS should not be ignored and may be barriers to treatment.

In an article published in Bone Marrow Transplant in 2021, Dr. Vipul Sheth and Dr. Jordan Gauthier of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, noted that adverse effects may remain a challenge to widespread use of CAR-T in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia, for which it has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and several European agencies. However, “there is mounting evidence that earlier, and potentially more targeted, interventions can reduce these toxicities,” they wrote.
 

Study provides solid stepping stone

“CRS and ICANS are mild in most patients but can be severe and sometimes life-threatening in a subset of patients undergoing CD19 CAR T-cell therapy,” Dr. Gauthier said in an interview. “Different strategies are being investigated to mitigate or treat severe toxicities, such as the use of prophylactic corticosteroids, anakinra, lenzilumab, itacitinib. I am hopeful we will soon manage to prevent toxicities while maintaining potent anti-tumor effects,” he said.

“While autologous CD19 CAR-T cells have high efficacy in patients with refractory/relapsed large B-cell lymphoma, product manufacturing remains a complicated and lengthy process in the autologous setting,” Dr. Gauthier noted. “Commercial CAR T-cell manufacturing takes approximately 3-4 weeks, sometimes longer. Some patients won’t survive long enough to receive their infusion. In some patients, T-cell function is dramatically impaired, due to prior therapies or to the disease itself,” he said.

Dr. Gauthier said he was not surprised but that he was encouraged by the apparent early success of the ANTLER study. “The proof-of-concept that allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T cells can induce high response rates in r/r LBCL has already been established,” he said. “Having said that, it is comforting to see prior findings confirmed by this new study, and those results are exciting for the field,” he added.

As for additional research, “we need longer follow-up after allogeneic CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy to ensure responses are durable,” Dr. Gauthier explained. “We also need to better understand the biology driving the antitumor effects and the side effects of CAR T-cells. This will help us build more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell therapies,” he said.
 

Response and side effects show promise for future research

The therapy is “the best CAR-T product” that clinicians can provide for patients knowing that autologous CAR-T works, said Dr. Ahmed Galal, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., in an interview. The current research supports the use of this treatment immediately for patients, he added.

Dr. Galal said he was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly so, by the 100% response rate. This rate is likely because of the small number of patients and may not hold up in further research, but “even 90% would be an amazing achievement,” he said. The tolerable safety profile is encouraging as well, he emphasized. Dr. Galal said that he did not foresee any real barriers to expanded use of the therapy and that technology should make it easier to deliver at authorized centers.

Limitations to the current study are those common to all phase 1 trials, such as the strict inclusion criteria, Dr. Galal said. As research progresses to phase 2, “I don’t think it will be an obstacle to find patients,” he said. However, patients should be aware of side effects, and clinicians should maintain a culture of education to help them understand the value of the therapy, he added.

The complete data from the preliminary findings are scheduled to be presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2022 Hybrid Congress, Vienna, in June, as abstract P1455, titled “First-in-human trial of CB-010, a CRISPR-edited allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with a PD-1 knock out, in patients with relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ANTLER study).” The findings are scheduled to be presented by Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, according to Caribou Biosciences.

Dr. Gauthier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Galal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Results of the KEYNOTE-522 clinical trial highlight the importance of neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.

A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.

The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.

At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.

Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.

Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.

The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).

“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.

The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.

Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).

“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.

In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.

Results of the KEYNOTE-522 clinical trial highlight the importance of neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.

A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.

The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.

At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.

Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.

Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.

The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).

“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.

The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.

Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).

“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.

In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.

Results of the KEYNOTE-522 clinical trial highlight the importance of neoadjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.

A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.

The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.

At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.

Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.

Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.

The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).

“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.

The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.

Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).

“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.

In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO -- Breast cancer patients with low levels of HER2 expression, previously considered untreatable with HER2-targeted therapies, benefited from the anti-HER2 antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The therapy doubled progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) and low levels of HER2.

“Overall, these results establish HER2 low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” said Shanu Modi, MD, during a press conference held in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

“I think the results of this trial clearly will be practice changing,” said ASCO spokesperson and breast cancer expert Jane Lowe Meisel, MD, during the press conference. “I think what this trial does is really extend the benefits of this agent to a whole new group of patients that traditionally is really quite difficult to treat. I think this will offer a wonderful new option for patients and also will really fundamentally change the way we think about HER2 status and how we classify this in our metastatic patients,” Dr. Meisel added.

The conjugate includes the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab and the topoisomerase I inhibitor deruxtecan, which interferes with DNA replication. Trastuzumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with high levels of HER2 expression, and trastuzumab-deruxtecan received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in patients who had previously received an anti-HER2 regimen.

However, anti-HER2 agents had not been shown to benefit HER2-low patients, defined as immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+. About 60% of breast cancer patients traditionally thought of HER2 negative could be classified as HER2 low, according to Dr. Modi, who is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Asked why she thought trastuzumab deruxtecan succeeded where other anti-HER2 therapies failed in this population, Dr. Modi highlighted the nature of the drug conjugate, including a high drug payload and the use of a topoisomerase inhibitor, which is rarely employed against breast cancer. Once released from the antibody, the drug retains its ability to cross cell membranes and enter the tumor microenvironment. That ‘knock on’ effect might allow it to reach neighboring cells that don’t express HER2. “We know HER2 expression is very heterogeneous. I think that’s why, for the first time, we’re seeing activity for a targeted agent,” Dr. Modi said.

The DESTINY-Breast04 study included 557 patients in Asia, Europe, and North America with HR-negative or HR-positive, HER2-low, unresectable, and/or metastatic breast cancer. Patients were randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of several standard chemotherapy drugs. After a median follow-up of 18.4 months, compared with the chemotherapy group, patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm had a 49% reduction in risk of progression and a 36% reduction in mortality. The group also had longer progression-free survival (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months) and overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months).

Although adverse events were similar between the two groups (52.6% in trastuzumab deruxtecan, 67.4% in chemotherapy), lung toxicity occurred in 12% of the group, and there were 3 fatalities as a result (0.8%). Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis has been linked to trastuzumab treatment in the past, with one meta-analysis finding a frequency of 2.4% and fatality rate of 0.2%.

Additional studies are in progress to determine the minimum threshold of HER2 expression needed to gain a benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Modi has advised, consulted for, or received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Meisel has advised or consulted for Medscape and AstraZeneca.

Adagrasib, an investigational drug that acts as a KRASG12C inhibitor, has shown durable clinical benefit in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumors with KRAS G12C mutations.

“KRAS G12C mutations occur in over 10% of patients with NSCL [and] remain difficult to target, and outcomes for this patient population have remained poor,” co-investigator Joshua Sabari, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone, said in a statement.

“Our patients benefited clinically from this agent, and it appears to have improved overall survival (OS), compared with historical outcomes with docetaxel, a standard-of-care chemotherapy regimen, in the second-line setting,” he added.

New data on adagrasib were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adagrasib (developed by Mirati) is currently awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring the KRAS G12C mutation who have received at least one prior systemic therapy. This would be an accelerated approval based on overall response data from the KRYSTAL-1 study detailed below. The company has an ongoing confirmatory Phase 3 trial, KRYSTAL-12, evaluating adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients previously treated for metastatic NSCLC with a KRAS G12C mutation.

If approved, adagrasib would be the second in this class of agents. The first KRASG12C inhibitor for use in lung cancer was sotorasib (Lumakras), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2021.  

Dr. Sabari noted that there are several differences between the two drugs. Adagrasib has CNS penetration and is the first KRASG12C inhibitor to demonstrate clinical activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with untreated active CNS metastases.
 

Published clinical data

The results published in the New England Journal of Medicine are from the company-funded KRYSTAL-1 clinical trial, which had the primary endpoint of objective response rate.

It was conducted in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who had previously received treatment with at least one platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen and checkpoint inhibitor therapy either sequentially or concurrently.

Patients were treated with oral adagrasib 600 mg twice a day until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

On Oct. 15, 2021, the data cutoff date, a total of 116 patients had received at least one dose of adagrasib. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 42.9% among 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline. One patient achieved a complete response: 42% achieved a partial response, and disease stabilized for a minimum of 6 weeks in over 36% of the group.

Only 5.4% of patients had progressive disease as their best overall response, investigators note. Among those patients who responded to twice-daily KRASG12C inhibition, the median time to response was 1.4 months and the median duration of response was 8.5 months. As of the data cutoff date, one-third of the group were still receiving treatment, the authors note.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months and median OS was 11.7 months. With a longer median follow-up of 15.6 months, median OS was 12.6 months, and the estimated OS at 1 year was close to 51%.

“The majority of treatment-related adverse events were low-grade, started early in treatment, and quickly resolved after occurrence,” Dr. Sabari noted.

Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 53% of patients while 45% had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, and there were two fatal grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. The same events led to a dose reduction in 52% of the group overall and dose interruption in 61%, while in 7% of patients, treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of the drug.
 

CNS metastases

At baseline, some 42 patients had evidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, an intracranial-confirmed objective response was achieved in one-third of this subgroup overall while median duration of the intracranial response was 11.2 months. Again, within the same subgroup, the median PFS was 5.4 months.

As Dr. Sabari noted, CNS metastases from KRAS mutant NSCLC are common. “Adagrasib demonstrated encouraging and durable CNS-specific activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC and active, untreated CNS metastases,” he said.

The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

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

Adagrasib, an investigational drug that acts as a KRASG12C inhibitor, has shown durable clinical benefit in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumors with KRAS G12C mutations.

“KRAS G12C mutations occur in over 10% of patients with NSCL [and] remain difficult to target, and outcomes for this patient population have remained poor,” co-investigator Joshua Sabari, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone, said in a statement.

“Our patients benefited clinically from this agent, and it appears to have improved overall survival (OS), compared with historical outcomes with docetaxel, a standard-of-care chemotherapy regimen, in the second-line setting,” he added.

New data on adagrasib were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adagrasib (developed by Mirati) is currently awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring the KRAS G12C mutation who have received at least one prior systemic therapy. This would be an accelerated approval based on overall response data from the KRYSTAL-1 study detailed below. The company has an ongoing confirmatory Phase 3 trial, KRYSTAL-12, evaluating adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients previously treated for metastatic NSCLC with a KRAS G12C mutation.

If approved, adagrasib would be the second in this class of agents. The first KRASG12C inhibitor for use in lung cancer was sotorasib (Lumakras), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2021.  

Dr. Sabari noted that there are several differences between the two drugs. Adagrasib has CNS penetration and is the first KRASG12C inhibitor to demonstrate clinical activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with untreated active CNS metastases.
 

Published clinical data

The results published in the New England Journal of Medicine are from the company-funded KRYSTAL-1 clinical trial, which had the primary endpoint of objective response rate.

It was conducted in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who had previously received treatment with at least one platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen and checkpoint inhibitor therapy either sequentially or concurrently.

Patients were treated with oral adagrasib 600 mg twice a day until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

On Oct. 15, 2021, the data cutoff date, a total of 116 patients had received at least one dose of adagrasib. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 42.9% among 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline. One patient achieved a complete response: 42% achieved a partial response, and disease stabilized for a minimum of 6 weeks in over 36% of the group.

Only 5.4% of patients had progressive disease as their best overall response, investigators note. Among those patients who responded to twice-daily KRASG12C inhibition, the median time to response was 1.4 months and the median duration of response was 8.5 months. As of the data cutoff date, one-third of the group were still receiving treatment, the authors note.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months and median OS was 11.7 months. With a longer median follow-up of 15.6 months, median OS was 12.6 months, and the estimated OS at 1 year was close to 51%.

“The majority of treatment-related adverse events were low-grade, started early in treatment, and quickly resolved after occurrence,” Dr. Sabari noted.

Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 53% of patients while 45% had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, and there were two fatal grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. The same events led to a dose reduction in 52% of the group overall and dose interruption in 61%, while in 7% of patients, treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of the drug.
 

CNS metastases

At baseline, some 42 patients had evidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, an intracranial-confirmed objective response was achieved in one-third of this subgroup overall while median duration of the intracranial response was 11.2 months. Again, within the same subgroup, the median PFS was 5.4 months.

As Dr. Sabari noted, CNS metastases from KRAS mutant NSCLC are common. “Adagrasib demonstrated encouraging and durable CNS-specific activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC and active, untreated CNS metastases,” he said.

The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

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

Adagrasib, an investigational drug that acts as a KRASG12C inhibitor, has shown durable clinical benefit in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumors with KRAS G12C mutations.

“KRAS G12C mutations occur in over 10% of patients with NSCL [and] remain difficult to target, and outcomes for this patient population have remained poor,” co-investigator Joshua Sabari, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone, said in a statement.

“Our patients benefited clinically from this agent, and it appears to have improved overall survival (OS), compared with historical outcomes with docetaxel, a standard-of-care chemotherapy regimen, in the second-line setting,” he added.

New data on adagrasib were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adagrasib (developed by Mirati) is currently awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring the KRAS G12C mutation who have received at least one prior systemic therapy. This would be an accelerated approval based on overall response data from the KRYSTAL-1 study detailed below. The company has an ongoing confirmatory Phase 3 trial, KRYSTAL-12, evaluating adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients previously treated for metastatic NSCLC with a KRAS G12C mutation.

If approved, adagrasib would be the second in this class of agents. The first KRASG12C inhibitor for use in lung cancer was sotorasib (Lumakras), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2021.  

Dr. Sabari noted that there are several differences between the two drugs. Adagrasib has CNS penetration and is the first KRASG12C inhibitor to demonstrate clinical activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with untreated active CNS metastases.
 

Published clinical data

The results published in the New England Journal of Medicine are from the company-funded KRYSTAL-1 clinical trial, which had the primary endpoint of objective response rate.

It was conducted in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who had previously received treatment with at least one platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen and checkpoint inhibitor therapy either sequentially or concurrently.

Patients were treated with oral adagrasib 600 mg twice a day until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

On Oct. 15, 2021, the data cutoff date, a total of 116 patients had received at least one dose of adagrasib. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 42.9% among 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline. One patient achieved a complete response: 42% achieved a partial response, and disease stabilized for a minimum of 6 weeks in over 36% of the group.

Only 5.4% of patients had progressive disease as their best overall response, investigators note. Among those patients who responded to twice-daily KRASG12C inhibition, the median time to response was 1.4 months and the median duration of response was 8.5 months. As of the data cutoff date, one-third of the group were still receiving treatment, the authors note.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months and median OS was 11.7 months. With a longer median follow-up of 15.6 months, median OS was 12.6 months, and the estimated OS at 1 year was close to 51%.

“The majority of treatment-related adverse events were low-grade, started early in treatment, and quickly resolved after occurrence,” Dr. Sabari noted.

Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 53% of patients while 45% had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, and there were two fatal grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. The same events led to a dose reduction in 52% of the group overall and dose interruption in 61%, while in 7% of patients, treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of the drug.
 

CNS metastases

At baseline, some 42 patients had evidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, an intracranial-confirmed objective response was achieved in one-third of this subgroup overall while median duration of the intracranial response was 11.2 months. Again, within the same subgroup, the median PFS was 5.4 months.

As Dr. Sabari noted, CNS metastases from KRAS mutant NSCLC are common. “Adagrasib demonstrated encouraging and durable CNS-specific activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC and active, untreated CNS metastases,” he said.

The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

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

Increasing social services spending by 10% led to improved survival for non-Hispanic Black adults with cancer, according to new research.

Five-year overall survival increased among non-Hispanic Black patients by 2.02% in conjunction with a 10% increase in spending. In addition, there was a decrease in racial disparities in survival between non-Hispanic Black patients and White patients for many types of cancers.

However, public welfare spending had no real impact on the overall 5-year survival for the entire cohort (0.25 % per 10% increase in spending; P = .78) or for non-Hispanic White patients (0.52% per 10% increase in spending, P = .58).

“We know from prior research that outcomes are worse for minorities,” said lead author Justin Michael Barnes, MD, from the department of radiation oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. “It’s thought that some of the differences are related to impaired access to health care for minorities, which is related to social determinants of health. This includes socioeconomic factors, educational attainment, place of residence, as well as environmental stressors.

“Our data show that greater state welfare expenditures were associated with greater 5-year survival among Black patients and decreased Black–White disparities,” said Dr. Barnes. “I think these data are thought provoking, but they certainly aren’t the end. I see these data as a proof-of-concept project.”

Dr. Barnes reported the findings at a press conference held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, during which the study will be presented (Abstract 6509).
 

Improved 5-year survival in Black patients

For the study, Dr. Barnes and colleagues evaluated the association of 5-year overall survival and public welfare spending in 2,925,550 individuals aged 18 years and older who were diagnosed with cancer during the period 2007-2016. The cohort was drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. In addition, annual state spending data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The team examined survival outcomes by race and ethnicity as well as by cancer site. The investigators accounted for factors such as age, sex, metropolitan residence, state, county-level income and education, insurance status, cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and year of diagnosis.

Much of public welfare spending was related to Medicaid but also included programs that provide subsidy assistance for individuals, such as Supplemental Security Income.

As compared with White patients, the 5-year overall survival rate was 10.8% lower among non-Hispanic Black patients. But there was a 4.46% (P for interaction <.001) narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity in non-Hispanic Black patients in comparison with White patients per 10% increase in spending, or a 42% closure of the 10.8% disparity.

Regarding specific cancer types, increased public welfare spending was associated with a narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients for the following cancers: breast (a 6.15% survival increase for Black patients led to a 39% closing of the disparity), cervix (a 11.9% survival increase led to a 46% closing of the disparity), colorectum (a 4.42% survival increase led to a 48% closing of the disparity), head and neck (a 9.41% survival increase led to a 38% closing of the disparity), liver (a 7.02% survival increase led to a 49% closing of the disparity), ovary (an 8.95% survival increase led to a 41% closing of the disparity), bladder (an 8.18% survival increase led to a 44% closing of the disparity), and uterus (a 14.1% survival increase led to a 40% closing of the disparity).

“Some type of public welfare seems to be helping improve oncologic outcomes for some of our most socioeconomically at-risk patients, but we don’t know the specifics,” Dr. Barnes concluded. “Additional work is needed to identify the most influential public health expenditures. If we can do this, we can more rigorously evaluate state-level policies and their association with cancer outcomes.”
 

Public welfare improves outcomes

Weighing in on the data, Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Special Surveillance and Breast Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that racial disparities have been identified in many areas of health care and with respect to many diseases. “In the world of oncology, time to diagnosis and treatment significantly impacts overall survival,” she told this news organization. “Many studies are currently underway to investigate why certain ethnic groups have worse cancer outcomes.”

This study is important, she noted, in that it “highlights a discrete source of correcting these disparities in a large group of patients. Obviously there are multiple barriers to care, but increased public welfare spending in oncology should decrease some of these disparities.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented that it is known that state public welfare spending can mitigate structural racism and at least partially address social determinants of health, such as financial stability, education, place of residence, and insurance status. “This research found that states that increased their public health spending improved overall survival in Black patients with a variety of solid tumors and also resulted in a decrease in racial disparities in survival,” she said. “This important data provides clear support for the benefits of investment in public welfare spending at the state level, including Medicaid expansion.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Increasing social services spending by 10% led to improved survival for non-Hispanic Black adults with cancer, according to new research.

Five-year overall survival increased among non-Hispanic Black patients by 2.02% in conjunction with a 10% increase in spending. In addition, there was a decrease in racial disparities in survival between non-Hispanic Black patients and White patients for many types of cancers.

However, public welfare spending had no real impact on the overall 5-year survival for the entire cohort (0.25 % per 10% increase in spending; P = .78) or for non-Hispanic White patients (0.52% per 10% increase in spending, P = .58).

“We know from prior research that outcomes are worse for minorities,” said lead author Justin Michael Barnes, MD, from the department of radiation oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. “It’s thought that some of the differences are related to impaired access to health care for minorities, which is related to social determinants of health. This includes socioeconomic factors, educational attainment, place of residence, as well as environmental stressors.

“Our data show that greater state welfare expenditures were associated with greater 5-year survival among Black patients and decreased Black–White disparities,” said Dr. Barnes. “I think these data are thought provoking, but they certainly aren’t the end. I see these data as a proof-of-concept project.”

Dr. Barnes reported the findings at a press conference held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, during which the study will be presented (Abstract 6509).
 

Improved 5-year survival in Black patients

For the study, Dr. Barnes and colleagues evaluated the association of 5-year overall survival and public welfare spending in 2,925,550 individuals aged 18 years and older who were diagnosed with cancer during the period 2007-2016. The cohort was drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. In addition, annual state spending data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The team examined survival outcomes by race and ethnicity as well as by cancer site. The investigators accounted for factors such as age, sex, metropolitan residence, state, county-level income and education, insurance status, cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and year of diagnosis.

Much of public welfare spending was related to Medicaid but also included programs that provide subsidy assistance for individuals, such as Supplemental Security Income.

As compared with White patients, the 5-year overall survival rate was 10.8% lower among non-Hispanic Black patients. But there was a 4.46% (P for interaction <.001) narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity in non-Hispanic Black patients in comparison with White patients per 10% increase in spending, or a 42% closure of the 10.8% disparity.

Regarding specific cancer types, increased public welfare spending was associated with a narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients for the following cancers: breast (a 6.15% survival increase for Black patients led to a 39% closing of the disparity), cervix (a 11.9% survival increase led to a 46% closing of the disparity), colorectum (a 4.42% survival increase led to a 48% closing of the disparity), head and neck (a 9.41% survival increase led to a 38% closing of the disparity), liver (a 7.02% survival increase led to a 49% closing of the disparity), ovary (an 8.95% survival increase led to a 41% closing of the disparity), bladder (an 8.18% survival increase led to a 44% closing of the disparity), and uterus (a 14.1% survival increase led to a 40% closing of the disparity).

“Some type of public welfare seems to be helping improve oncologic outcomes for some of our most socioeconomically at-risk patients, but we don’t know the specifics,” Dr. Barnes concluded. “Additional work is needed to identify the most influential public health expenditures. If we can do this, we can more rigorously evaluate state-level policies and their association with cancer outcomes.”
 

Public welfare improves outcomes

Weighing in on the data, Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Special Surveillance and Breast Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that racial disparities have been identified in many areas of health care and with respect to many diseases. “In the world of oncology, time to diagnosis and treatment significantly impacts overall survival,” she told this news organization. “Many studies are currently underway to investigate why certain ethnic groups have worse cancer outcomes.”

This study is important, she noted, in that it “highlights a discrete source of correcting these disparities in a large group of patients. Obviously there are multiple barriers to care, but increased public welfare spending in oncology should decrease some of these disparities.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented that it is known that state public welfare spending can mitigate structural racism and at least partially address social determinants of health, such as financial stability, education, place of residence, and insurance status. “This research found that states that increased their public health spending improved overall survival in Black patients with a variety of solid tumors and also resulted in a decrease in racial disparities in survival,” she said. “This important data provides clear support for the benefits of investment in public welfare spending at the state level, including Medicaid expansion.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Increasing social services spending by 10% led to improved survival for non-Hispanic Black adults with cancer, according to new research.

Five-year overall survival increased among non-Hispanic Black patients by 2.02% in conjunction with a 10% increase in spending. In addition, there was a decrease in racial disparities in survival between non-Hispanic Black patients and White patients for many types of cancers.

However, public welfare spending had no real impact on the overall 5-year survival for the entire cohort (0.25 % per 10% increase in spending; P = .78) or for non-Hispanic White patients (0.52% per 10% increase in spending, P = .58).

“We know from prior research that outcomes are worse for minorities,” said lead author Justin Michael Barnes, MD, from the department of radiation oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. “It’s thought that some of the differences are related to impaired access to health care for minorities, which is related to social determinants of health. This includes socioeconomic factors, educational attainment, place of residence, as well as environmental stressors.

“Our data show that greater state welfare expenditures were associated with greater 5-year survival among Black patients and decreased Black–White disparities,” said Dr. Barnes. “I think these data are thought provoking, but they certainly aren’t the end. I see these data as a proof-of-concept project.”

Dr. Barnes reported the findings at a press conference held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, during which the study will be presented (Abstract 6509).
 

Improved 5-year survival in Black patients

For the study, Dr. Barnes and colleagues evaluated the association of 5-year overall survival and public welfare spending in 2,925,550 individuals aged 18 years and older who were diagnosed with cancer during the period 2007-2016. The cohort was drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. In addition, annual state spending data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The team examined survival outcomes by race and ethnicity as well as by cancer site. The investigators accounted for factors such as age, sex, metropolitan residence, state, county-level income and education, insurance status, cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and year of diagnosis.

Much of public welfare spending was related to Medicaid but also included programs that provide subsidy assistance for individuals, such as Supplemental Security Income.

As compared with White patients, the 5-year overall survival rate was 10.8% lower among non-Hispanic Black patients. But there was a 4.46% (P for interaction <.001) narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity in non-Hispanic Black patients in comparison with White patients per 10% increase in spending, or a 42% closure of the 10.8% disparity.

Regarding specific cancer types, increased public welfare spending was associated with a narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients for the following cancers: breast (a 6.15% survival increase for Black patients led to a 39% closing of the disparity), cervix (a 11.9% survival increase led to a 46% closing of the disparity), colorectum (a 4.42% survival increase led to a 48% closing of the disparity), head and neck (a 9.41% survival increase led to a 38% closing of the disparity), liver (a 7.02% survival increase led to a 49% closing of the disparity), ovary (an 8.95% survival increase led to a 41% closing of the disparity), bladder (an 8.18% survival increase led to a 44% closing of the disparity), and uterus (a 14.1% survival increase led to a 40% closing of the disparity).

“Some type of public welfare seems to be helping improve oncologic outcomes for some of our most socioeconomically at-risk patients, but we don’t know the specifics,” Dr. Barnes concluded. “Additional work is needed to identify the most influential public health expenditures. If we can do this, we can more rigorously evaluate state-level policies and their association with cancer outcomes.”
 

Public welfare improves outcomes

Weighing in on the data, Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Special Surveillance and Breast Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that racial disparities have been identified in many areas of health care and with respect to many diseases. “In the world of oncology, time to diagnosis and treatment significantly impacts overall survival,” she told this news organization. “Many studies are currently underway to investigate why certain ethnic groups have worse cancer outcomes.”

This study is important, she noted, in that it “highlights a discrete source of correcting these disparities in a large group of patients. Obviously there are multiple barriers to care, but increased public welfare spending in oncology should decrease some of these disparities.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented that it is known that state public welfare spending can mitigate structural racism and at least partially address social determinants of health, such as financial stability, education, place of residence, and insurance status. “This research found that states that increased their public health spending improved overall survival in Black patients with a variety of solid tumors and also resulted in a decrease in racial disparities in survival,” she said. “This important data provides clear support for the benefits of investment in public welfare spending at the state level, including Medicaid expansion.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Among patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy led to significantly longer event-free survival and more frequent pathological complete response in patients than chemotherapy alone.

“Our data show that three cycles of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy improved long-term clinical outcomes in patients with resectable stage IB-IIIA NSCLC without impeding the feasibility of surgery or increasing the incidence of adverse events as compared with chemotherapy alone,” wrote the investigators, who were led by Patrick M. Forde, MB, BCh, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb), in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy, was approved in March by the Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for adults with early-stage, resectable NSCLC. It is the first approval of a neoadjuvant therapy for this patient population. The results of the study, called CheckMate 816, formed the basis of the approval.

About one in four NSCLC patients have resectable disease at diagnosis, but their mortality rate is 30%-55% even after surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in this group, but 5-year recurrence rates improve by just 5%-6%, and rates of pathological complete response are low.

In the neoadjuvant setting, the anti–programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibody nivolumab could reduce micrometastases and boost immune response against bulk tumor and tumor antigens. A phase 2 study published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy conferred good 3-year overall survival (81.9%) and progression-free survival (69.6%) among patients with stage IIIA NSCLC.
 

Results from CheckMate 816

CheckMate 816 is an open-label, phase 3 trial in which 358 patients were randomized to a neoadjuvant course of 360 mg nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone. Treatments occurred every 3 weeks for three cycles.

Definitive surgery was performed in 83.2% of the combination group (R0, 83.2%) and 75.4% in the chemotherapy-only group (R0, 77.8%). 93.8% in the combined group and 84.7% in the chemotherapy-only group completed neoadjuvant treatment. 11.9% of the combination group and 22.2% in the chemotherapy-only group underwent adjuvant therapy. A total of 21.2% in the combination group had cancer therapy versus 43.6% of the chemotherapy-only group.

After a minimum follow-up of 21 months, the combination group had a median event-free survival of 31.6 months versus 20.8 months in the chemotherapy-only group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; P = .005). The interim analysis for overall survival showed a possible trend towards improved overall survival in the combination group (HR, 0.57; 99.67% confidence interval, 0.30-1.07; P = .0008).

A total of 24.0% of the combination therapy achieved a pathological complete response versus 2.2% in the chemotherapy-only group (odds ratio, 13.94; P < .001).

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the combination group and 36.9% of the chemotherapy-only group.

The researchers noted that 63.1% of patients in the study had stage IIIA tumors, which has a poor prognosis.

There were benefits to the combination treatment across PD-1–status subgroups, but event-free survival was higher where PD-L1 expression level was 1% or more.

The study is limited by its open-label nature. It was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Among patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy led to significantly longer event-free survival and more frequent pathological complete response in patients than chemotherapy alone.

“Our data show that three cycles of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy improved long-term clinical outcomes in patients with resectable stage IB-IIIA NSCLC without impeding the feasibility of surgery or increasing the incidence of adverse events as compared with chemotherapy alone,” wrote the investigators, who were led by Patrick M. Forde, MB, BCh, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb), in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy, was approved in March by the Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for adults with early-stage, resectable NSCLC. It is the first approval of a neoadjuvant therapy for this patient population. The results of the study, called CheckMate 816, formed the basis of the approval.

About one in four NSCLC patients have resectable disease at diagnosis, but their mortality rate is 30%-55% even after surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in this group, but 5-year recurrence rates improve by just 5%-6%, and rates of pathological complete response are low.

In the neoadjuvant setting, the anti–programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibody nivolumab could reduce micrometastases and boost immune response against bulk tumor and tumor antigens. A phase 2 study published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy conferred good 3-year overall survival (81.9%) and progression-free survival (69.6%) among patients with stage IIIA NSCLC.
 

Results from CheckMate 816

CheckMate 816 is an open-label, phase 3 trial in which 358 patients were randomized to a neoadjuvant course of 360 mg nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone. Treatments occurred every 3 weeks for three cycles.

Definitive surgery was performed in 83.2% of the combination group (R0, 83.2%) and 75.4% in the chemotherapy-only group (R0, 77.8%). 93.8% in the combined group and 84.7% in the chemotherapy-only group completed neoadjuvant treatment. 11.9% of the combination group and 22.2% in the chemotherapy-only group underwent adjuvant therapy. A total of 21.2% in the combination group had cancer therapy versus 43.6% of the chemotherapy-only group.

After a minimum follow-up of 21 months, the combination group had a median event-free survival of 31.6 months versus 20.8 months in the chemotherapy-only group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; P = .005). The interim analysis for overall survival showed a possible trend towards improved overall survival in the combination group (HR, 0.57; 99.67% confidence interval, 0.30-1.07; P = .0008).

A total of 24.0% of the combination therapy achieved a pathological complete response versus 2.2% in the chemotherapy-only group (odds ratio, 13.94; P < .001).

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the combination group and 36.9% of the chemotherapy-only group.

The researchers noted that 63.1% of patients in the study had stage IIIA tumors, which has a poor prognosis.

There were benefits to the combination treatment across PD-1–status subgroups, but event-free survival was higher where PD-L1 expression level was 1% or more.

The study is limited by its open-label nature. It was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Among patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy led to significantly longer event-free survival and more frequent pathological complete response in patients than chemotherapy alone.

“Our data show that three cycles of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy improved long-term clinical outcomes in patients with resectable stage IB-IIIA NSCLC without impeding the feasibility of surgery or increasing the incidence of adverse events as compared with chemotherapy alone,” wrote the investigators, who were led by Patrick M. Forde, MB, BCh, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore. The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb), in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy, was approved in March by the Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for adults with early-stage, resectable NSCLC. It is the first approval of a neoadjuvant therapy for this patient population. The results of the study, called CheckMate 816, formed the basis of the approval.

About one in four NSCLC patients have resectable disease at diagnosis, but their mortality rate is 30%-55% even after surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in this group, but 5-year recurrence rates improve by just 5%-6%, and rates of pathological complete response are low.

In the neoadjuvant setting, the anti–programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibody nivolumab could reduce micrometastases and boost immune response against bulk tumor and tumor antigens. A phase 2 study published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy conferred good 3-year overall survival (81.9%) and progression-free survival (69.6%) among patients with stage IIIA NSCLC.
 

Results from CheckMate 816

CheckMate 816 is an open-label, phase 3 trial in which 358 patients were randomized to a neoadjuvant course of 360 mg nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone. Treatments occurred every 3 weeks for three cycles.

Definitive surgery was performed in 83.2% of the combination group (R0, 83.2%) and 75.4% in the chemotherapy-only group (R0, 77.8%). 93.8% in the combined group and 84.7% in the chemotherapy-only group completed neoadjuvant treatment. 11.9% of the combination group and 22.2% in the chemotherapy-only group underwent adjuvant therapy. A total of 21.2% in the combination group had cancer therapy versus 43.6% of the chemotherapy-only group.

After a minimum follow-up of 21 months, the combination group had a median event-free survival of 31.6 months versus 20.8 months in the chemotherapy-only group (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; P = .005). The interim analysis for overall survival showed a possible trend towards improved overall survival in the combination group (HR, 0.57; 99.67% confidence interval, 0.30-1.07; P = .0008).

A total of 24.0% of the combination therapy achieved a pathological complete response versus 2.2% in the chemotherapy-only group (odds ratio, 13.94; P < .001).

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the combination group and 36.9% of the chemotherapy-only group.

The researchers noted that 63.1% of patients in the study had stage IIIA tumors, which has a poor prognosis.

There were benefits to the combination treatment across PD-1–status subgroups, but event-free survival was higher where PD-L1 expression level was 1% or more.

The study is limited by its open-label nature. It was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on June 1 it has withdrawn approval of the lymphoma drug umbralisib (Ukoniq) following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”

Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.

But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.

Five months later, the results are in.

“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.

In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.

The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”

In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.

The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.

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