AVAHO

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

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

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

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

Genomic profiling improves outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer as long as the alteration-drug match has good clinical trial evidence supporting its use, a new pooled analysis suggests.

“The message is very simple,” lead study author Fabrice Andre, MD, PhD, research director, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France, told this news organization during a virtual press briefing. “If a genomic alteration is validated, it is useful to give targeted therapy, but if the genomic alteration is not validated, we should not give a targeted therapy.”

The study, which pooled results from phase 2 randomized trials SAFIR02-BREAST and SAFIR-P13K, was presented Dec. 7 in a virtual press briefing at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021.

The new analysis explored two key questions: Is genomic testing of a cancer effective? And how should oncologists interpret a genomic report?

A total of 1,462 patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer underwent next-generation sequencing. After receiving six to eight cycles of chemotherapy, 238 patients (16%) were randomized to one of nine targeted therapies matched to the genomic alteration identified on testing or to maintenance chemotherapy.

Genomic alterations in the patients’ tumors were classified using the ESMO Scale of Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). A tier I ranking indicates that the alteration-drug match is associated with improved outcomes in clinical trials, while a tier II ranking means that the alteration-drug match is associated with antitumor activity but the magnitude of benefit remains unknown.

In an analysis of the overall trial population, Dr. Andre and colleagues found an improvement in progression-free survival in the targeted therapy group (median of 5.5 months) in comparison with the maintenance chemotherapy group (2.9 months), but the difference was not significant (P = .109).

In a subgroup of 115 patients presenting with I- or II-tier genomic alterations, median progression-free survival was 59% longer, at 9.1 months, among patients receiving targeted therapy, compared with 2.8 months in the maintenance chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001).

In addition, the team carried out single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses on 926 patients. They identified 21 genes that were altered more frequently in the metastases compared with the primary tumors, and they observed that a high homologous recombination deficiency score in patients with BCRA 1 or 2 mutations was associated with a longer progression-free survival in patients treated with olaparib.

“We also identified a subset of patients who are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors who presented with CDK4 amplification, and this amplification is associated with overexpression,” Dr. Andre explained.

When asked whether most oncologists were using genomic profiling to tailor treatment for breast cancer patients, Dr. Andre said that multigene sequencing is now widely used.

“The issue is not so much whether we should use or not use genomics; the issue here is to force everyone to put the genomic alteration in the right context in terms of its level of evidence,” Dr. Andre told this news organization.

Oncologists may overinterpret the genomic activation identified and give a targeted therapy that is not validated, but “oncologists should not use genomic information when the target has not been previously validated in a therapeutic trial,” he added.

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, said in an interview that approximately 5 years ago, Dr. Andre was part of the first debate at the SABCS discussing whether oncologists should be conducting next-generation sequencing for their patients with breast cancer.

“At the time, [Dr.] Andre’s comment was that we should not be doing it,” recalled Dr. Kaklamani, who is also leader of the breast cancer program at the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health San Antonio MD Anderson. “At that point, I think it was clear that we did not have the data we needed to be able to use next-generation sequencing to change our clinical management.”

However, the evidence has evolved. “Based on this clinical trial, I think we now do have the data,” she said. “I think that [next-generation sequencing] is something we will be using more and more in practice and treating our patients based on [validated] genomic alterations.”

Dr. Andre has received grants or advisory board/speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lily, and Novartis. Dr. Kaklamani has served as a consultant for Puma, AstraZeneca, Athenex, and Immunomedics, has received research funding from Eisai, and has served as a speaker for Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, and Genomic Health, among other companies.

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

People with thyroid cancer treated with thyroidectomy have as much as a 40% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, regardless of their age, with the elevated risk observed with low as well as high doses of postoperative levothyroxine, new research shows.

“This is the first population-based study to demonstrate an elevated risk of type 2 diabetes in postthyroidectomy patients with thyroid cancer, compared with that in matched controls,” wrote the authors of the research, published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Notably, there was a U-shaped relationship between postoperative levothyroxine dosage, a surrogate marker of TSH suppression, and the risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Hye Jin Yoo, MD, of the division of endocrinology and metabolism, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, and colleagues.

While other studies have linked thyroidectomy for thyroid cancer with an elevated risk for other metabolic conditions, including coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke, the relatively high diabetes risk is unexpected, said Tyler Drake, MD, an endocrinologist with the Minneapolis VA Health Care System.

“A 40% increased risk of diabetes is a big surprise,” he said in an interview.

“Diabetes is very common, with about one in 10 U.S. adults having type 2 diabetes, but a 40% increased risk in thyroid cancer patients is higher than I see in my clinical practice. [However], it is important to note that the [highest] risk was predominantly among the groups on the lowest and highest doses of levothyroxine,” said Dr. Drake, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
 

U-shaped relationship between levothyroxine dose and diabetes risk

The findings are from a study of 36,377 patients with thyroid cancer in the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database in Korea who had undergone a thyroidectomy between 2004 and 2013.

The patients were matched 1:1 with controls who had nonthyroid cancers. Their mean age was 46.6 years, about 30% were male, and their mean body mass index was 23.8 kg/m².

Over a mean follow-up of 6.6 years, the patients with thyroid cancer had a significantly higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, at a rate of 47.5% (10,812) compared with 36.9% (9414; HR, 1.43; P < .001) in the control group, after adjustment for factors such as age, sex, BMI, smoking, drinking, systolic blood pressure, and fasting glucose.

The risk of type 2 diabetes among those with thyroid cancer was higher among the 83.2% of patients who underwent a total thyroidectomy compared with the 16.8% who had a unilateral lobectomy (HR, 1.06; P < .001).

In addition, those with thyroid cancer who received the lowest as well as highest dosages of levothyroxine had significantly higher risks of type 2 diabetes compared with controls (HR, 1.50 and 1.39, respectively; both P < .001).

A closer look at quartiles of levothyroxine dosing showed the first (lowest) quartile (defined as a mean levothyroxine dosage of < 101 mcg/day) was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared with the second quartile group (101-127 mcg/day; HR, 1.45), as was the fourth quartile (≥ 150 mcg/day; HR, 1.37), while a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes was observed in the third quartile group (128-149 mcg/day versus the second quartile group; HR, 0.91).

“This result suggests a U-shaped relationship between the mean levothyroxine dosage and risk of type 2 diabetes in postthyroidectomy patients with thyroid cancer,” the authors said.

However, “consistent with previous studies, the present study showed that the highest risk of type 2 diabetes was observed in patients with thyroid cancer who were treated with the lowest mean dosage of levothyroxine,” they noted.

“This result suggests that inadequate supplementation of thyroid hormones may worsen glucose metabolism and should therefore be avoided.”
 

Potential mechanisms

Abnormal thyroid function, including hypo- and hyperthyroidism, following thyroidectomy and subsequent treatment with levothyroxine, is known to have potentially detrimental effects on glucose regulation among patients with thyroid cancer.

The potential mechanisms linking hypothyroidism with diabetes specifically include the possibility that insulin becomes unable to promote the utilization of glucose by muscles and adipose tissue. However, thyroid hormone replacement has been associated with a normalization of insulin sensitivity, the authors noted.

Meanwhile, glucose intolerance is common among patients with hyperthyroidism, largely due to an increase in hepatic glucose production, and likewise, the normalization of thyroid levels among those treated with methimazole has been linked to normalization of glucose and lipid metabolism alterations.

Dr. Drake noted that an important study limitation is that patients were analyzed based on their levothyroxine dose and not their TSH values, which the authors explain was due to the unavailability of the TSH values. 

“By looking at levothyroxine doses, and not TSH values, it is possible some patients were being improperly treated with either too much or too little levothyroxine,” Dr. Drake noted.
 

Control group should have had hypothyroidism

The findings nevertheless shed light on the risk of diabetes following thyroidectomy for thyroid cancer, Anupam Kotwal, MD, commented on the study.

“This study is significant because it addresses an important topic exploring the link between thyroid dysfunction and metabolic disease, in this case ... hypothyroidism, due to surgery for thyroid cancer and type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Kotwal, assistant professor of medicine in the division of diabetes, endocrinology & metabolism at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in an interview.

In terms of other limitations, Dr. Kotwal noted that the controls did not have hypothyroidism; therefore, “from this study, it is impossible to confirm whether hypothyroidism from any cause would be associated with higher incidence of diabetes or if it is specific to thyroid surgery for thyroid cancer.

“It would have been useful to have a control group of autoimmune primary hypothyroidism to evaluate the rate of diabetes during a similar follow-up duration,” Dr. Kotwal said.

“Hence, cohort studies with more granular data such as degree of TSH suppression and having a control group of hypothyroid patients due to autoimmune thyroid disease are needed to better understand this risk.”

Dr. Kotwal and Dr. Drake have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with thyroid cancer treated with thyroidectomy have as much as a 40% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, regardless of their age, with the elevated risk observed with low as well as high doses of postoperative levothyroxine, new research shows.

“This is the first population-based study to demonstrate an elevated risk of type 2 diabetes in postthyroidectomy patients with thyroid cancer, compared with that in matched controls,” wrote the authors of the research, published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Notably, there was a U-shaped relationship between postoperative levothyroxine dosage, a surrogate marker of TSH suppression, and the risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Hye Jin Yoo, MD, of the division of endocrinology and metabolism, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, and colleagues.

While other studies have linked thyroidectomy for thyroid cancer with an elevated risk for other metabolic conditions, including coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke, the relatively high diabetes risk is unexpected, said Tyler Drake, MD, an endocrinologist with the Minneapolis VA Health Care System.

“A 40% increased risk of diabetes is a big surprise,” he said in an interview.

“Diabetes is very common, with about one in 10 U.S. adults having type 2 diabetes, but a 40% increased risk in thyroid cancer patients is higher than I see in my clinical practice. [However], it is important to note that the [highest] risk was predominantly among the groups on the lowest and highest doses of levothyroxine,” said Dr. Drake, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
 

U-shaped relationship between levothyroxine dose and diabetes risk

The findings are from a study of 36,377 patients with thyroid cancer in the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database in Korea who had undergone a thyroidectomy between 2004 and 2013.

The patients were matched 1:1 with controls who had nonthyroid cancers. Their mean age was 46.6 years, about 30% were male, and their mean body mass index was 23.8 kg/m².

Over a mean follow-up of 6.6 years, the patients with thyroid cancer had a significantly higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, at a rate of 47.5% (10,812) compared with 36.9% (9414; HR, 1.43; P < .001) in the control group, after adjustment for factors such as age, sex, BMI, smoking, drinking, systolic blood pressure, and fasting glucose.

The risk of type 2 diabetes among those with thyroid cancer was higher among the 83.2% of patients who underwent a total thyroidectomy compared with the 16.8% who had a unilateral lobectomy (HR, 1.06; P < .001).

In addition, those with thyroid cancer who received the lowest as well as highest dosages of levothyroxine had significantly higher risks of type 2 diabetes compared with controls (HR, 1.50 and 1.39, respectively; both P < .001).

A closer look at quartiles of levothyroxine dosing showed the first (lowest) quartile (defined as a mean levothyroxine dosage of < 101 mcg/day) was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared with the second quartile group (101-127 mcg/day; HR, 1.45), as was the fourth quartile (≥ 150 mcg/day; HR, 1.37), while a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes was observed in the third quartile group (128-149 mcg/day versus the second quartile group; HR, 0.91).

“This result suggests a U-shaped relationship between the mean levothyroxine dosage and risk of type 2 diabetes in postthyroidectomy patients with thyroid cancer,” the authors said.

However, “consistent with previous studies, the present study showed that the highest risk of type 2 diabetes was observed in patients with thyroid cancer who were treated with the lowest mean dosage of levothyroxine,” they noted.

“This result suggests that inadequate supplementation of thyroid hormones may worsen glucose metabolism and should therefore be avoided.”
 

Potential mechanisms

Abnormal thyroid function, including hypo- and hyperthyroidism, following thyroidectomy and subsequent treatment with levothyroxine, is known to have potentially detrimental effects on glucose regulation among patients with thyroid cancer.

The potential mechanisms linking hypothyroidism with diabetes specifically include the possibility that insulin becomes unable to promote the utilization of glucose by muscles and adipose tissue. However, thyroid hormone replacement has been associated with a normalization of insulin sensitivity, the authors noted.

Meanwhile, glucose intolerance is common among patients with hyperthyroidism, largely due to an increase in hepatic glucose production, and likewise, the normalization of thyroid levels among those treated with methimazole has been linked to normalization of glucose and lipid metabolism alterations.

Dr. Drake noted that an important study limitation is that patients were analyzed based on their levothyroxine dose and not their TSH values, which the authors explain was due to the unavailability of the TSH values. 

“By looking at levothyroxine doses, and not TSH values, it is possible some patients were being improperly treated with either too much or too little levothyroxine,” Dr. Drake noted.
 

Control group should have had hypothyroidism

The findings nevertheless shed light on the risk of diabetes following thyroidectomy for thyroid cancer, Anupam Kotwal, MD, commented on the study.

“This study is significant because it addresses an important topic exploring the link between thyroid dysfunction and metabolic disease, in this case ... hypothyroidism, due to surgery for thyroid cancer and type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Kotwal, assistant professor of medicine in the division of diabetes, endocrinology & metabolism at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in an interview.

In terms of other limitations, Dr. Kotwal noted that the controls did not have hypothyroidism; therefore, “from this study, it is impossible to confirm whether hypothyroidism from any cause would be associated with higher incidence of diabetes or if it is specific to thyroid surgery for thyroid cancer.

“It would have been useful to have a control group of autoimmune primary hypothyroidism to evaluate the rate of diabetes during a similar follow-up duration,” Dr. Kotwal said.

“Hence, cohort studies with more granular data such as degree of TSH suppression and having a control group of hypothyroid patients due to autoimmune thyroid disease are needed to better understand this risk.”

Dr. Kotwal and Dr. Drake have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with thyroid cancer treated with thyroidectomy have as much as a 40% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, regardless of their age, with the elevated risk observed with low as well as high doses of postoperative levothyroxine, new research shows.

“This is the first population-based study to demonstrate an elevated risk of type 2 diabetes in postthyroidectomy patients with thyroid cancer, compared with that in matched controls,” wrote the authors of the research, published recently in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Notably, there was a U-shaped relationship between postoperative levothyroxine dosage, a surrogate marker of TSH suppression, and the risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Hye Jin Yoo, MD, of the division of endocrinology and metabolism, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, and colleagues.

While other studies have linked thyroidectomy for thyroid cancer with an elevated risk for other metabolic conditions, including coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke, the relatively high diabetes risk is unexpected, said Tyler Drake, MD, an endocrinologist with the Minneapolis VA Health Care System.

“A 40% increased risk of diabetes is a big surprise,” he said in an interview.

“Diabetes is very common, with about one in 10 U.S. adults having type 2 diabetes, but a 40% increased risk in thyroid cancer patients is higher than I see in my clinical practice. [However], it is important to note that the [highest] risk was predominantly among the groups on the lowest and highest doses of levothyroxine,” said Dr. Drake, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
 

U-shaped relationship between levothyroxine dose and diabetes risk

The findings are from a study of 36,377 patients with thyroid cancer in the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database in Korea who had undergone a thyroidectomy between 2004 and 2013.

The patients were matched 1:1 with controls who had nonthyroid cancers. Their mean age was 46.6 years, about 30% were male, and their mean body mass index was 23.8 kg/m².

Over a mean follow-up of 6.6 years, the patients with thyroid cancer had a significantly higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, at a rate of 47.5% (10,812) compared with 36.9% (9414; HR, 1.43; P < .001) in the control group, after adjustment for factors such as age, sex, BMI, smoking, drinking, systolic blood pressure, and fasting glucose.

The risk of type 2 diabetes among those with thyroid cancer was higher among the 83.2% of patients who underwent a total thyroidectomy compared with the 16.8% who had a unilateral lobectomy (HR, 1.06; P < .001).

In addition, those with thyroid cancer who received the lowest as well as highest dosages of levothyroxine had significantly higher risks of type 2 diabetes compared with controls (HR, 1.50 and 1.39, respectively; both P < .001).

A closer look at quartiles of levothyroxine dosing showed the first (lowest) quartile (defined as a mean levothyroxine dosage of < 101 mcg/day) was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared with the second quartile group (101-127 mcg/day; HR, 1.45), as was the fourth quartile (≥ 150 mcg/day; HR, 1.37), while a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes was observed in the third quartile group (128-149 mcg/day versus the second quartile group; HR, 0.91).

“This result suggests a U-shaped relationship between the mean levothyroxine dosage and risk of type 2 diabetes in postthyroidectomy patients with thyroid cancer,” the authors said.

However, “consistent with previous studies, the present study showed that the highest risk of type 2 diabetes was observed in patients with thyroid cancer who were treated with the lowest mean dosage of levothyroxine,” they noted.

“This result suggests that inadequate supplementation of thyroid hormones may worsen glucose metabolism and should therefore be avoided.”
 

Potential mechanisms

Abnormal thyroid function, including hypo- and hyperthyroidism, following thyroidectomy and subsequent treatment with levothyroxine, is known to have potentially detrimental effects on glucose regulation among patients with thyroid cancer.

The potential mechanisms linking hypothyroidism with diabetes specifically include the possibility that insulin becomes unable to promote the utilization of glucose by muscles and adipose tissue. However, thyroid hormone replacement has been associated with a normalization of insulin sensitivity, the authors noted.

Meanwhile, glucose intolerance is common among patients with hyperthyroidism, largely due to an increase in hepatic glucose production, and likewise, the normalization of thyroid levels among those treated with methimazole has been linked to normalization of glucose and lipid metabolism alterations.

Dr. Drake noted that an important study limitation is that patients were analyzed based on their levothyroxine dose and not their TSH values, which the authors explain was due to the unavailability of the TSH values. 

“By looking at levothyroxine doses, and not TSH values, it is possible some patients were being improperly treated with either too much or too little levothyroxine,” Dr. Drake noted.
 

Control group should have had hypothyroidism

The findings nevertheless shed light on the risk of diabetes following thyroidectomy for thyroid cancer, Anupam Kotwal, MD, commented on the study.

“This study is significant because it addresses an important topic exploring the link between thyroid dysfunction and metabolic disease, in this case ... hypothyroidism, due to surgery for thyroid cancer and type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Kotwal, assistant professor of medicine in the division of diabetes, endocrinology & metabolism at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in an interview.

In terms of other limitations, Dr. Kotwal noted that the controls did not have hypothyroidism; therefore, “from this study, it is impossible to confirm whether hypothyroidism from any cause would be associated with higher incidence of diabetes or if it is specific to thyroid surgery for thyroid cancer.

“It would have been useful to have a control group of autoimmune primary hypothyroidism to evaluate the rate of diabetes during a similar follow-up duration,” Dr. Kotwal said.

“Hence, cohort studies with more granular data such as degree of TSH suppression and having a control group of hypothyroid patients due to autoimmune thyroid disease are needed to better understand this risk.”

Dr. Kotwal and Dr. Drake have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An updated analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial confirms the durability of combination immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, representing a “substantial development” in treatment, researchers say.

Nearly half the patients treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were alive at 6½ years. Within this group, 77% had not received further systemic treatment after coming off the study drugs.

After a minimum follow-up of 77 months, median overall survival was 72.1 months in patients on the combination, which was more than three times longer than the 19.9 months with ipilimumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.64) and twice as long as the 36.9 months with nivolumab alone (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04).

The results represent the longest median overall survival seen in a phase 3 trial of advanced melanoma and are evidence of “a substantial development in the melanoma treatment landscape versus the standard median survival of 8 months a decade ago,” researchers wrote in a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

However, lead author Jedd D. Wolchok, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that the study was not designed to compare nivolumab alone with the combination. “It wasn’t powered for that. [But] what we can say is that the highest survival was in the combination group,” Dr. Wolchok told this news organization.

Dr. Wolchok cautioned that the combination therapy is not currently standard of care. “PD-1 blockade – either nivolumab or the combination – are both excellent options for care,” he added. “I can’t tell you that one of them is the standard of care because that’s too complex of a decision.”

For example, he explained, “for a patient who only has lung metastases, a single-agent PD-1 blockade might be sufficient. But if it has spread to other organs, such as the liver or bones, which are more difficult to treat, that’s when we often reach for the combination.”

Other factors that weigh into the therapeutic decision are the patient’s performance status and their so-called clinical reserve for tolerating side effects. “The likelihood of having a high-grade side effect with the combination is more than twice that of the single agent,” Dr. Wolchok said.

Until 2011, only two therapies were approved for metastatic melanoma: Chemotherapy with dacarbazine and immunotherapy with high-dose interleukin-2, neither of which was very effective at prolonging life. But patient survival changed with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Some patients are now living for years, and as the current study shows, many have surpassed the 5-year mark and are treatment free.

The updated CheckMate 067 analysis included patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma who were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/ kg every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315).

The authors reported the 5-year overall survival rates from the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 – 52% with the combination, 44% with nivolumab alone, and 26% with ipilimumab alone.

In the updated study, overall survival at 6½ years had dropped slightly to 49%, 42%, and 23%, respectively. Patients with BRAF-mutant tumors had overall survival rates of 57%, 43%, and 25% versus 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF wild-type tumors.

Overall, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 11.5 months with the combination, 6.9 months with nivolumab alone, and 2.9 months with ipilimumab.

The new analysis also evaluated melanoma-specific survival (MSS), which removes competing causes of deaths from the long-term follow-up. The MSS was not reached in the combination group, and was 58.7 months in the nivolumab group and 21.9 months for ipilimumab, with MSS rates at 6.5 years of 56%, 48%, and 27%, respectively.

No new safety signals were detected, but there was more immune-mediated toxicity in the combination group, the researchers reported.

“The patients will continue to be followed,” said Dr. Wolchok, “And data are still being collected.”

The trial was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute for Health Research Royal Marsden–Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Wolchok and coauthors reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other drugmakers.
 

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

An updated analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial confirms the durability of combination immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, representing a “substantial development” in treatment, researchers say.

Nearly half the patients treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were alive at 6½ years. Within this group, 77% had not received further systemic treatment after coming off the study drugs.

After a minimum follow-up of 77 months, median overall survival was 72.1 months in patients on the combination, which was more than three times longer than the 19.9 months with ipilimumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.64) and twice as long as the 36.9 months with nivolumab alone (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04).

The results represent the longest median overall survival seen in a phase 3 trial of advanced melanoma and are evidence of “a substantial development in the melanoma treatment landscape versus the standard median survival of 8 months a decade ago,” researchers wrote in a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

However, lead author Jedd D. Wolchok, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that the study was not designed to compare nivolumab alone with the combination. “It wasn’t powered for that. [But] what we can say is that the highest survival was in the combination group,” Dr. Wolchok told this news organization.

Dr. Wolchok cautioned that the combination therapy is not currently standard of care. “PD-1 blockade – either nivolumab or the combination – are both excellent options for care,” he added. “I can’t tell you that one of them is the standard of care because that’s too complex of a decision.”

For example, he explained, “for a patient who only has lung metastases, a single-agent PD-1 blockade might be sufficient. But if it has spread to other organs, such as the liver or bones, which are more difficult to treat, that’s when we often reach for the combination.”

Other factors that weigh into the therapeutic decision are the patient’s performance status and their so-called clinical reserve for tolerating side effects. “The likelihood of having a high-grade side effect with the combination is more than twice that of the single agent,” Dr. Wolchok said.

Until 2011, only two therapies were approved for metastatic melanoma: Chemotherapy with dacarbazine and immunotherapy with high-dose interleukin-2, neither of which was very effective at prolonging life. But patient survival changed with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Some patients are now living for years, and as the current study shows, many have surpassed the 5-year mark and are treatment free.

The updated CheckMate 067 analysis included patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma who were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/ kg every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315).

The authors reported the 5-year overall survival rates from the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 – 52% with the combination, 44% with nivolumab alone, and 26% with ipilimumab alone.

In the updated study, overall survival at 6½ years had dropped slightly to 49%, 42%, and 23%, respectively. Patients with BRAF-mutant tumors had overall survival rates of 57%, 43%, and 25% versus 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF wild-type tumors.

Overall, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 11.5 months with the combination, 6.9 months with nivolumab alone, and 2.9 months with ipilimumab.

The new analysis also evaluated melanoma-specific survival (MSS), which removes competing causes of deaths from the long-term follow-up. The MSS was not reached in the combination group, and was 58.7 months in the nivolumab group and 21.9 months for ipilimumab, with MSS rates at 6.5 years of 56%, 48%, and 27%, respectively.

No new safety signals were detected, but there was more immune-mediated toxicity in the combination group, the researchers reported.

“The patients will continue to be followed,” said Dr. Wolchok, “And data are still being collected.”

The trial was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute for Health Research Royal Marsden–Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Wolchok and coauthors reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other drugmakers.
 

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

An updated analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial confirms the durability of combination immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, representing a “substantial development” in treatment, researchers say.

Nearly half the patients treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were alive at 6½ years. Within this group, 77% had not received further systemic treatment after coming off the study drugs.

After a minimum follow-up of 77 months, median overall survival was 72.1 months in patients on the combination, which was more than three times longer than the 19.9 months with ipilimumab alone (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.64) and twice as long as the 36.9 months with nivolumab alone (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04).

The results represent the longest median overall survival seen in a phase 3 trial of advanced melanoma and are evidence of “a substantial development in the melanoma treatment landscape versus the standard median survival of 8 months a decade ago,” researchers wrote in a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

However, lead author Jedd D. Wolchok, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that the study was not designed to compare nivolumab alone with the combination. “It wasn’t powered for that. [But] what we can say is that the highest survival was in the combination group,” Dr. Wolchok told this news organization.

Dr. Wolchok cautioned that the combination therapy is not currently standard of care. “PD-1 blockade – either nivolumab or the combination – are both excellent options for care,” he added. “I can’t tell you that one of them is the standard of care because that’s too complex of a decision.”

For example, he explained, “for a patient who only has lung metastases, a single-agent PD-1 blockade might be sufficient. But if it has spread to other organs, such as the liver or bones, which are more difficult to treat, that’s when we often reach for the combination.”

Other factors that weigh into the therapeutic decision are the patient’s performance status and their so-called clinical reserve for tolerating side effects. “The likelihood of having a high-grade side effect with the combination is more than twice that of the single agent,” Dr. Wolchok said.

Until 2011, only two therapies were approved for metastatic melanoma: Chemotherapy with dacarbazine and immunotherapy with high-dose interleukin-2, neither of which was very effective at prolonging life. But patient survival changed with the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Some patients are now living for years, and as the current study shows, many have surpassed the 5-year mark and are treatment free.

The updated CheckMate 067 analysis included patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage III/IV melanoma who were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/ kg every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315).

The authors reported the 5-year overall survival rates from the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 – 52% with the combination, 44% with nivolumab alone, and 26% with ipilimumab alone.

In the updated study, overall survival at 6½ years had dropped slightly to 49%, 42%, and 23%, respectively. Patients with BRAF-mutant tumors had overall survival rates of 57%, 43%, and 25% versus 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF wild-type tumors.

Overall, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 11.5 months with the combination, 6.9 months with nivolumab alone, and 2.9 months with ipilimumab.

The new analysis also evaluated melanoma-specific survival (MSS), which removes competing causes of deaths from the long-term follow-up. The MSS was not reached in the combination group, and was 58.7 months in the nivolumab group and 21.9 months for ipilimumab, with MSS rates at 6.5 years of 56%, 48%, and 27%, respectively.

No new safety signals were detected, but there was more immune-mediated toxicity in the combination group, the researchers reported.

“The patients will continue to be followed,” said Dr. Wolchok, “And data are still being collected.”

The trial was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute for Health Research Royal Marsden–Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Wolchok and coauthors reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other drugmakers.
 

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

Sleep apnea and other types of sleep disorders appear to elevate the risk for some types of cancer, specifically prostate cancer, more so than others. But the overall risk can be highly variable, and some sleep problems were found to be associated with a lower risk for cancer and cancer-related death, an analysis of a large observational cohort study of cardiovascular patients found.

Results of the analysis were published online in the journal Cancer Epidemiology. Investigators analyzed the presence of sleep apnea and insomnia and cancer risk in more than 8,500 patients in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). “The fact that we observed certain sleep problems, like apneas, to be associated with elevated risk of some cancers but not others reflects the fact that cancer is a heterogeneous disease,” senior author Amanda Phipps, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Phipps is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.
 

Variable cancer links

The researchers assessed sleep problems in two groups in the CHS: an incident cancer group of 3,930 patients and a cancer mortality group of 4,580 patients. Within those respective groups, the investigators identified 885 first-incident cancers and 804 cancer deaths with a median follow-up of 12 and 14 years. The average age of the study population was 73 years, and 57% were women.

Sleep apnea symptoms (SAS) were associated with a lower risk for incident cancers – a 16% lower baseline risk and a 24% lower time-dependent risk. The study showed no association between cancer incidence and daytime sleepiness and apneas.

However, there was a significantly elevated risk relationship between sleep problems and prostate cancer. A time-dependent analysis of apnea showed more than double the risk (hazard ratio, 2.34), and baseline snoring carried a 69% greater risk. There was also a dose-response relationship for baseline cumulative SAS, compared with not having symptoms: an HR of 1.30 for one symptom, and 2.22 for two or more symptoms.

Risks for lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers were also associated with baseline daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.81), but not with insomnia (HR, 0.54).

With regard to cancer mortality, the study found no relationship between sleep problems and cancer death. In fact, it found an overall inverse relationship with snoring (time-dependent HR, 0.73; cumulative average HR, 0.67) and baseline apnea (HR, 0.69). Likewise, patients reporting SAS had lower risks than those having no SAS: an HR of 0.90 for one symptom and 0.75 for multiple symptoms. No relationships were found between any insomnia symptom and cancer death.

“We know the pathways that lead to prostate cancer can be very different than the pathways that lead to colorectal cancer,” Dr. Phipps said. “What we don’t yet understand is why these associations differ or what mechanisms are responsible for these cancer site-specific associations.”
 

Need for sleep assessment

The findings don’t change much for how clinicians should evaluate cancer risks in patients with sleep problems, Dr. Phipps said. “Other studies have clearly demonstrated the implications that sleep apnea has for a variety of other important health conditions – such as cardiovascular disease – so there are already plenty of good reasons for clinicians to ask their patients about their sleep and to connect patients with resources for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea,” she added. “This study provides another possible reason.”

These findings provide context for future studies of the relationship between sleep problems and cancer. “But, given that sleep is something we all do and given that sleep problems are so pervasive, it’s important that we keep trying to better understand this relationship,” Dr. Phipps said.

“My hope is that future cancer studies will build in more detailed, longitudinal information on sleep patterns to help us fill current gaps in knowledge.”

Dr. Phipps has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleep apnea and other types of sleep disorders appear to elevate the risk for some types of cancer, specifically prostate cancer, more so than others. But the overall risk can be highly variable, and some sleep problems were found to be associated with a lower risk for cancer and cancer-related death, an analysis of a large observational cohort study of cardiovascular patients found.

Results of the analysis were published online in the journal Cancer Epidemiology. Investigators analyzed the presence of sleep apnea and insomnia and cancer risk in more than 8,500 patients in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). “The fact that we observed certain sleep problems, like apneas, to be associated with elevated risk of some cancers but not others reflects the fact that cancer is a heterogeneous disease,” senior author Amanda Phipps, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Phipps is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.
 

Variable cancer links

The researchers assessed sleep problems in two groups in the CHS: an incident cancer group of 3,930 patients and a cancer mortality group of 4,580 patients. Within those respective groups, the investigators identified 885 first-incident cancers and 804 cancer deaths with a median follow-up of 12 and 14 years. The average age of the study population was 73 years, and 57% were women.

Sleep apnea symptoms (SAS) were associated with a lower risk for incident cancers – a 16% lower baseline risk and a 24% lower time-dependent risk. The study showed no association between cancer incidence and daytime sleepiness and apneas.

However, there was a significantly elevated risk relationship between sleep problems and prostate cancer. A time-dependent analysis of apnea showed more than double the risk (hazard ratio, 2.34), and baseline snoring carried a 69% greater risk. There was also a dose-response relationship for baseline cumulative SAS, compared with not having symptoms: an HR of 1.30 for one symptom, and 2.22 for two or more symptoms.

Risks for lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers were also associated with baseline daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.81), but not with insomnia (HR, 0.54).

With regard to cancer mortality, the study found no relationship between sleep problems and cancer death. In fact, it found an overall inverse relationship with snoring (time-dependent HR, 0.73; cumulative average HR, 0.67) and baseline apnea (HR, 0.69). Likewise, patients reporting SAS had lower risks than those having no SAS: an HR of 0.90 for one symptom and 0.75 for multiple symptoms. No relationships were found between any insomnia symptom and cancer death.

“We know the pathways that lead to prostate cancer can be very different than the pathways that lead to colorectal cancer,” Dr. Phipps said. “What we don’t yet understand is why these associations differ or what mechanisms are responsible for these cancer site-specific associations.”
 

Need for sleep assessment

The findings don’t change much for how clinicians should evaluate cancer risks in patients with sleep problems, Dr. Phipps said. “Other studies have clearly demonstrated the implications that sleep apnea has for a variety of other important health conditions – such as cardiovascular disease – so there are already plenty of good reasons for clinicians to ask their patients about their sleep and to connect patients with resources for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea,” she added. “This study provides another possible reason.”

These findings provide context for future studies of the relationship between sleep problems and cancer. “But, given that sleep is something we all do and given that sleep problems are so pervasive, it’s important that we keep trying to better understand this relationship,” Dr. Phipps said.

“My hope is that future cancer studies will build in more detailed, longitudinal information on sleep patterns to help us fill current gaps in knowledge.”

Dr. Phipps has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleep apnea and other types of sleep disorders appear to elevate the risk for some types of cancer, specifically prostate cancer, more so than others. But the overall risk can be highly variable, and some sleep problems were found to be associated with a lower risk for cancer and cancer-related death, an analysis of a large observational cohort study of cardiovascular patients found.

Results of the analysis were published online in the journal Cancer Epidemiology. Investigators analyzed the presence of sleep apnea and insomnia and cancer risk in more than 8,500 patients in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). “The fact that we observed certain sleep problems, like apneas, to be associated with elevated risk of some cancers but not others reflects the fact that cancer is a heterogeneous disease,” senior author Amanda Phipps, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Phipps is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.
 

Variable cancer links

The researchers assessed sleep problems in two groups in the CHS: an incident cancer group of 3,930 patients and a cancer mortality group of 4,580 patients. Within those respective groups, the investigators identified 885 first-incident cancers and 804 cancer deaths with a median follow-up of 12 and 14 years. The average age of the study population was 73 years, and 57% were women.

Sleep apnea symptoms (SAS) were associated with a lower risk for incident cancers – a 16% lower baseline risk and a 24% lower time-dependent risk. The study showed no association between cancer incidence and daytime sleepiness and apneas.

However, there was a significantly elevated risk relationship between sleep problems and prostate cancer. A time-dependent analysis of apnea showed more than double the risk (hazard ratio, 2.34), and baseline snoring carried a 69% greater risk. There was also a dose-response relationship for baseline cumulative SAS, compared with not having symptoms: an HR of 1.30 for one symptom, and 2.22 for two or more symptoms.

Risks for lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers were also associated with baseline daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.81), but not with insomnia (HR, 0.54).

With regard to cancer mortality, the study found no relationship between sleep problems and cancer death. In fact, it found an overall inverse relationship with snoring (time-dependent HR, 0.73; cumulative average HR, 0.67) and baseline apnea (HR, 0.69). Likewise, patients reporting SAS had lower risks than those having no SAS: an HR of 0.90 for one symptom and 0.75 for multiple symptoms. No relationships were found between any insomnia symptom and cancer death.

“We know the pathways that lead to prostate cancer can be very different than the pathways that lead to colorectal cancer,” Dr. Phipps said. “What we don’t yet understand is why these associations differ or what mechanisms are responsible for these cancer site-specific associations.”
 

Need for sleep assessment

The findings don’t change much for how clinicians should evaluate cancer risks in patients with sleep problems, Dr. Phipps said. “Other studies have clearly demonstrated the implications that sleep apnea has for a variety of other important health conditions – such as cardiovascular disease – so there are already plenty of good reasons for clinicians to ask their patients about their sleep and to connect patients with resources for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea,” she added. “This study provides another possible reason.”

These findings provide context for future studies of the relationship between sleep problems and cancer. “But, given that sleep is something we all do and given that sleep problems are so pervasive, it’s important that we keep trying to better understand this relationship,” Dr. Phipps said.

“My hope is that future cancer studies will build in more detailed, longitudinal information on sleep patterns to help us fill current gaps in knowledge.”

Dr. Phipps has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis of over 22,000 mastectomy patients confirms what smaller studies have indicated: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy have overall and disease-free survival similar to that of those who receive a total mastectomy.

When nipple-sparing mastectomy was introduced, many experts felt uneasy about opting for the less invasive procedure, recalled Rosa Hwang, MD, associate medical director for breast surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “The concern was leaving all this skin,” said Dr. Hwang. “Are you going to leave cancer behind” and increase the risk of local recurrence?

Over the past 2 decades, the number of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy increased and, in turn, studies began to demonstrate the safety of the procedure.

However, large analyses evaluating long-term outcomes – namely, overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival – of nipple-sparing mastectomy were still lacking.

The latest study, published online Nov. 20 in Annals of Surgical Oncology, compared the long-term prognosis and survival benefits of nipple-sparing to total mastectomy in thousands of women. The analysis, which pulled data from the SEER cancer database, included 5,765 patients who underwent the nipple-sparing procedure and 17,289 patients who had a total mastectomy.

The authors found that overall survival and breast cancer–specific survival were similar for women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and those receiving a total mastectomy. In fact, over the long-term, the nipple-sparing group slightly edged out the total mastectomy group in overall survival (94.61% vs. 93% at 5 years and 86.34% vs. 83.48% at 10 years, respectively) and in breast cancer-specific survival rates (96.16% vs. 95.74% at 5 years, and 92.2% vs. 91.37% at 10 years). The differences, however, were not significant.

The study also found that certain subgroups – including White women, women over age 46, those with a median household income of $70,000 or more, hormone receptor-positive, and HER2 negative – had significantly better overall survival rate with the nipple-sparing procedure (P < .05). However, the authors noted, the survival advantage in the nipple-sparing group did not extend to breast cancer–specific survival.

Dr. Hwang, who was not involved in the current analysis, said the significant overall survival result in the subgroup analysis was surprising because “there’s no biological reason why one would expect that to be true.”  

Given that the subgroups did not demonstrate better breast cancer–specific survival, Dr. Hwang believes the overall survival finding may have more to do with comorbidities, which the study did not account for, than type of mastectomy.

When choosing who is eligible for a nipple-sparing mastectomy, “We’re more selective,” Dr. Hwang said. For instance, patients with uncontrolled diabetes or who smoke are unlikely to be candidates. “So, I think it’s possible that medical comorbidities and medical conditions between these groups [were] different.”

According to the authors, coding inconsistencies represent another possible weakness of the study. From 1998 to 2010, “the term ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ was coded as a [total mastectomy] with the ‘subcutaneous mastectomy’ code.” It’s possible that some patients receiving the nipple-sparing procedure before 2011 were not appropriately coded in the current study.

Moving forward, a large prospective study that includes comorbidities would be helpful, but overall the study helps validate that “nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe operation for selected patients,” Dr. Hwang said. 

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

A new analysis of over 22,000 mastectomy patients confirms what smaller studies have indicated: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy have overall and disease-free survival similar to that of those who receive a total mastectomy.

When nipple-sparing mastectomy was introduced, many experts felt uneasy about opting for the less invasive procedure, recalled Rosa Hwang, MD, associate medical director for breast surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “The concern was leaving all this skin,” said Dr. Hwang. “Are you going to leave cancer behind” and increase the risk of local recurrence?

Over the past 2 decades, the number of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy increased and, in turn, studies began to demonstrate the safety of the procedure.

However, large analyses evaluating long-term outcomes – namely, overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival – of nipple-sparing mastectomy were still lacking.

The latest study, published online Nov. 20 in Annals of Surgical Oncology, compared the long-term prognosis and survival benefits of nipple-sparing to total mastectomy in thousands of women. The analysis, which pulled data from the SEER cancer database, included 5,765 patients who underwent the nipple-sparing procedure and 17,289 patients who had a total mastectomy.

The authors found that overall survival and breast cancer–specific survival were similar for women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and those receiving a total mastectomy. In fact, over the long-term, the nipple-sparing group slightly edged out the total mastectomy group in overall survival (94.61% vs. 93% at 5 years and 86.34% vs. 83.48% at 10 years, respectively) and in breast cancer-specific survival rates (96.16% vs. 95.74% at 5 years, and 92.2% vs. 91.37% at 10 years). The differences, however, were not significant.

The study also found that certain subgroups – including White women, women over age 46, those with a median household income of $70,000 or more, hormone receptor-positive, and HER2 negative – had significantly better overall survival rate with the nipple-sparing procedure (P < .05). However, the authors noted, the survival advantage in the nipple-sparing group did not extend to breast cancer–specific survival.

Dr. Hwang, who was not involved in the current analysis, said the significant overall survival result in the subgroup analysis was surprising because “there’s no biological reason why one would expect that to be true.”  

Given that the subgroups did not demonstrate better breast cancer–specific survival, Dr. Hwang believes the overall survival finding may have more to do with comorbidities, which the study did not account for, than type of mastectomy.

When choosing who is eligible for a nipple-sparing mastectomy, “We’re more selective,” Dr. Hwang said. For instance, patients with uncontrolled diabetes or who smoke are unlikely to be candidates. “So, I think it’s possible that medical comorbidities and medical conditions between these groups [were] different.”

According to the authors, coding inconsistencies represent another possible weakness of the study. From 1998 to 2010, “the term ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ was coded as a [total mastectomy] with the ‘subcutaneous mastectomy’ code.” It’s possible that some patients receiving the nipple-sparing procedure before 2011 were not appropriately coded in the current study.

Moving forward, a large prospective study that includes comorbidities would be helpful, but overall the study helps validate that “nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe operation for selected patients,” Dr. Hwang said. 

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

A new analysis of over 22,000 mastectomy patients confirms what smaller studies have indicated: Patients who undergo nipple-sparing mastectomy have overall and disease-free survival similar to that of those who receive a total mastectomy.

When nipple-sparing mastectomy was introduced, many experts felt uneasy about opting for the less invasive procedure, recalled Rosa Hwang, MD, associate medical director for breast surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “The concern was leaving all this skin,” said Dr. Hwang. “Are you going to leave cancer behind” and increase the risk of local recurrence?

Over the past 2 decades, the number of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy increased and, in turn, studies began to demonstrate the safety of the procedure.

However, large analyses evaluating long-term outcomes – namely, overall survival and breast cancer-specific survival – of nipple-sparing mastectomy were still lacking.

The latest study, published online Nov. 20 in Annals of Surgical Oncology, compared the long-term prognosis and survival benefits of nipple-sparing to total mastectomy in thousands of women. The analysis, which pulled data from the SEER cancer database, included 5,765 patients who underwent the nipple-sparing procedure and 17,289 patients who had a total mastectomy.

The authors found that overall survival and breast cancer–specific survival were similar for women undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy and those receiving a total mastectomy. In fact, over the long-term, the nipple-sparing group slightly edged out the total mastectomy group in overall survival (94.61% vs. 93% at 5 years and 86.34% vs. 83.48% at 10 years, respectively) and in breast cancer-specific survival rates (96.16% vs. 95.74% at 5 years, and 92.2% vs. 91.37% at 10 years). The differences, however, were not significant.

The study also found that certain subgroups – including White women, women over age 46, those with a median household income of $70,000 or more, hormone receptor-positive, and HER2 negative – had significantly better overall survival rate with the nipple-sparing procedure (P < .05). However, the authors noted, the survival advantage in the nipple-sparing group did not extend to breast cancer–specific survival.

Dr. Hwang, who was not involved in the current analysis, said the significant overall survival result in the subgroup analysis was surprising because “there’s no biological reason why one would expect that to be true.”  

Given that the subgroups did not demonstrate better breast cancer–specific survival, Dr. Hwang believes the overall survival finding may have more to do with comorbidities, which the study did not account for, than type of mastectomy.

When choosing who is eligible for a nipple-sparing mastectomy, “We’re more selective,” Dr. Hwang said. For instance, patients with uncontrolled diabetes or who smoke are unlikely to be candidates. “So, I think it’s possible that medical comorbidities and medical conditions between these groups [were] different.”

According to the authors, coding inconsistencies represent another possible weakness of the study. From 1998 to 2010, “the term ‘nipple-sparing mastectomy’ was coded as a [total mastectomy] with the ‘subcutaneous mastectomy’ code.” It’s possible that some patients receiving the nipple-sparing procedure before 2011 were not appropriately coded in the current study.

Moving forward, a large prospective study that includes comorbidities would be helpful, but overall the study helps validate that “nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe operation for selected patients,” Dr. Hwang said. 

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) and carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus dexamethasone (Kd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have had one to three prior lines of therapy.

Using the newly approved combination in this setting is a time-saver for patients and clinics, observed an investigator.

“The approval of subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with Kd will help clinicians address unmet patient needs by reducing the administration time from hours to just minutes and reducing the frequency of infusion-related reactions, as compared to the intravenous daratumumab formulation in combination with Kd,” said Ajai Chari, MD, of Mount Sinai Cancer Clinical Trials Office in New York City in a Janssen press statement.

Efficacy data for the new approval come from a single-arm cohort of PLEIADES, a multicohort, open-label trial. The cohort included 66 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one or more prior lines of therapy. Patients received daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj subcutaneously in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone.

The main efficacy outcome measure was overall response rate, which was 84.8%. At a median follow-up of 9.2 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

The response rate with the new combination, which features a subcutaneous injection, was akin to those with the older combination, which features the more time-consuming IV administration and was FDA approved, according to the company press release.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) occurring in patients treated with Darzalex Faspro, Kyprolis, and dexamethasone were upper respiratory tract infections, fatigue, insomnia, hypertension, diarrhea, cough, dyspnea, headache, pyrexia, nausea, and edema peripheral.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) and carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus dexamethasone (Kd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have had one to three prior lines of therapy.

Using the newly approved combination in this setting is a time-saver for patients and clinics, observed an investigator.

“The approval of subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with Kd will help clinicians address unmet patient needs by reducing the administration time from hours to just minutes and reducing the frequency of infusion-related reactions, as compared to the intravenous daratumumab formulation in combination with Kd,” said Ajai Chari, MD, of Mount Sinai Cancer Clinical Trials Office in New York City in a Janssen press statement.

Efficacy data for the new approval come from a single-arm cohort of PLEIADES, a multicohort, open-label trial. The cohort included 66 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one or more prior lines of therapy. Patients received daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj subcutaneously in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone.

The main efficacy outcome measure was overall response rate, which was 84.8%. At a median follow-up of 9.2 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

The response rate with the new combination, which features a subcutaneous injection, was akin to those with the older combination, which features the more time-consuming IV administration and was FDA approved, according to the company press release.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) occurring in patients treated with Darzalex Faspro, Kyprolis, and dexamethasone were upper respiratory tract infections, fatigue, insomnia, hypertension, diarrhea, cough, dyspnea, headache, pyrexia, nausea, and edema peripheral.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) and carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus dexamethasone (Kd) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have had one to three prior lines of therapy.

Using the newly approved combination in this setting is a time-saver for patients and clinics, observed an investigator.

“The approval of subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with Kd will help clinicians address unmet patient needs by reducing the administration time from hours to just minutes and reducing the frequency of infusion-related reactions, as compared to the intravenous daratumumab formulation in combination with Kd,” said Ajai Chari, MD, of Mount Sinai Cancer Clinical Trials Office in New York City in a Janssen press statement.

Efficacy data for the new approval come from a single-arm cohort of PLEIADES, a multicohort, open-label trial. The cohort included 66 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one or more prior lines of therapy. Patients received daratumumab + hyaluronidase-fihj subcutaneously in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone.

The main efficacy outcome measure was overall response rate, which was 84.8%. At a median follow-up of 9.2 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

The response rate with the new combination, which features a subcutaneous injection, was akin to those with the older combination, which features the more time-consuming IV administration and was FDA approved, according to the company press release.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) occurring in patients treated with Darzalex Faspro, Kyprolis, and dexamethasone were upper respiratory tract infections, fatigue, insomnia, hypertension, diarrhea, cough, dyspnea, headache, pyrexia, nausea, and edema peripheral.

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

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.

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

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.

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

Aspirin use was associated with longer overall survival in people with inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a new study from Taiwan.

copyright Darren Hester/Fotolia.com

The analysis, published online Nov. 22 in BMC Cancer , adds another data point to a small and inconsistent evidence base.

“Despite the need for future prospective randomized clinical trials, aspirin may be considered as an additional treatment for inoperable NSCLC patients,” Ming-Szu Hung, MD, of Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan City, and colleagues write.

The current literature suggests that the over-the-counter medication may help ward off various types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the various study findings do not always align. For lung-cancer survival, in particular, a few observational studies have found increased survival among aspirin users while others have not.

To help bring clarity to the literature, Dr. Hung’s team examined data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database on more than 38,000 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012, almost 5,000 of whom were taking aspirin at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers found that aspirin users survived for a median of 1.73 years, compared with 1.30 years for nonusers. Taking the drug was associated with longer overall survival in time-varying covariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86). This finding was confirmed in a propensity-score analysis of 4,932 matched pairs (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

“These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients,” the researchers conclude.

But Úna McMenamin, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, was not convinced by the study’s methods.

While she praised its large size and use of population-based health registers, she expressed concern about the potential for reverse causation, “as it is unclear whether authors lagged the aspirin exposure in the cohort of lung cancer patients.”

There is evidence that common medications such as aspirin may be withdrawn from patients who are thought to be near the end of their life, Dr. McMenamin told this news organization. When not factored into the statistical analysis, aspirin may appear “to be spuriously associated with a reduced risk of death when, in fact, no association may be present.”

Previous studies of aspirin use in lung cancer patients that have included a lag, such as one Dr. McMenamin and colleagues conducted in 2015, have found no evidence of a protective effect.

That is why, according to Dr. McMenamin, “additional population-based studies, in diverse populations, are required to investigate the association between aspirin use and survival outcomes in lung-cancer patients to determine whether randomized controlled trials are warranted in this patient group.”

In addition, she noted, “any potential benefit of aspirin in lung cancer patients needs to be balanced against known adverse events associated with prolonged aspirin use, such as gastrointestinal bleeding.”

Dr. Hung did not reply to requests for comment.

The study had no funding, and the researchers report no conflicts of interest.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2021 will “be a great meeting,” according to Carlos Arteaga, MD, director of Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Arteaga, the meeting’s codirector, said the first-ever hybrid symposium will take place virtually from Dec. 7 to 10 as well as in person. Online availability appears to be a boon to attendance, with a record 9,325 registrants for the 2020 symposium, held only virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting will have an app available, which can be accessed by searching “San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium” (Google Play for Android, Apple for iOS) and downloading, or by going to www.core-apps.com/dl/sabcs from a desktop computer.

Dr. Arteaga provided a sneak peek of the most exciting research being presented at the upcoming meeting.
 

On the horizon for advanced breast cancer

A “very important” study of an investigational oral agent employed in heavily pretreated postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer headlines the meeting.

This international, multicenter trial could have “practice-changing implications,” Dr. Arteaga said in an interview.

The phase 3 EMERALD trial (abstract GS2-02) pits elacestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy (fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor) in patients with metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after treatment with at least one endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

The trial is important because many patients with breast cancer have estrogen receptor mutations, which are a “major mechanism of [drug] resistance” and thus progression on earlier therapy, Dr. Arteaga said.

Elacestrant is in good company among a plethora of oral SERDs under investigation in advanced breast cancer; however, currently, fulvestrant – which requires an intramuscular injection in the buttocks every month – is the only approved SERD.

“There’s plenty of preclinical data that suggest that these drugs [SERDs] may have activity against these mutant forms of the receptor, which occur in up to 40% of patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer,” he explained.

Researchers will present data on two primary outcome measures from the phase 3 trial: progression-free survival (PFS) based on mutations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1-mut) and PFS in all subjects regardless of ESR1 status.

In addition to the EMERALD trial, PADA-1 (abstract GS3-05) is another important randomized, phase 3 trial focused on treating estrogen receptor mutations in patients with metastatic disease, said Dr. Arteaga.

The trial has enrolled patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) and the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib as first-line therapy.

In step 1 of the trial, approximately 1,000 patients were screened for circulating blood ESR1 mutation detection at regular intervals while being treated with palbociclib and an aromatase inhibitor in a continuous scheme until tumor progression or ESR1 mutation detection.

In step 2, up to 200 patients with a rising circulating ESR1 mutation and no tumor progression were randomized 1:1 to no change in therapy until tumor progression or to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant until tumor progression.

The trial examines the safety and efficacy of “a clinical conundrum that we face” in this setting: whether or not to switch treatment from an aromatase inhibitor to fulvestrant while continuing a CDK4/6 inhibitor at the sign of mutation detection, Dr. Arteaga explained.
 

Refining who gets the ‘kitchen sink’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted two trials focused on the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 study led to the approval of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in July 2021. At this year’s SABCS, researchers will present new data from KEYNOTE-522 (abstract GS1-01), representing final results from the trial’s event-free survival (EFS) outcome.

Previously, investigators reported a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. These data suggest “that deploying immunotherapy early before surgery ... may be curative in some patients,” Dr. Arteaga said. The new data will allow the “robustness and consistency” of the earlier findings to be assessed.

But, he added, this is a “tough” treatment, which includes five drugs. “It’s the kitchen sink, and not everybody needs the kitchen sink. It’s important to refine these findings. Some patients may not need pembrolizumab, but some do.”

The second trial exploring pembrolizumab – KEYNOTE-355 (abstract GS1-02) – mirrors KEYNOTE-522 but in patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors expressed PD-L1.

Previously, investigators reported that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival and PFS compared to placebo plus chemotherapy. At the 2021 SABCS, researchers will provide final study results, including outcomes in subgroups of patients by additional combined positive score cutoffs.
 

Metformin trial: ‘This is it’

Dr. Arteaga highlighted CCTGMA.32 (abstract GS1-08), a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled adjuvant trial of the diabetes drug metformin versus placebo in early breast cancer. Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the trial will be presented at the meeting.

The Canadian-led study seeks to determine if metformin can decrease breast cancer cell growth and work with cancer therapies to prevent disease recurrence. The study design calls for patients to take twice-daily oral metformin or placebo pills for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression.

The primary outcome of the 3,500-plus patient trial is invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor (ER and PgR) negative and positive (ER and/or PgR) subgroups.

“Metformin has actually been associated with improved survival [in breast cancer] in patients on chemotherapy. But we don’t know exactly how,” he said. “There’s never been a head-to-head comparison in the adjuvant setting [before]. This is it.”
 

TKI for breast cancer with brain mets

The SABCS codirector spotlighted an updated overall survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 PHOEBE trial (abstract GS3-02).

Previous research confirmed the superiority of pyrotinib, a novel TKI targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, over lapatinib when given in combination with capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

In the United States, the lapatinib-capecitabine combination is “mostly used” in patients with HER2 metastatic disease and brain metastases who also undergo stereotactic radiation, Dr. Arteaga said.

This use has continued despite groundbreaking results from the HER2CLIMB trial, featuring the TKI tucatinib, he said.

As reported last year, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases increased median overall survival from 12 months to 18.1 months. The results were called the first of their kind at that time.

The pyrotinib study may matter to American clinicians because pyrotinib is used mostly in China, not the United States, and this analysis suggests that pyrotinib could be part of the armamentarium in the United States, alongside tucatinib.

TKIs are like Coke and Pepsi, Dr. Arteaga said: “Similar but not identical.” Therefore, it is worth taking a look at the new study, he said. “There may be some benefit in having more than one [TKI] in the therapeutic armamentarium.”

Dr. Arteaga receives or has received grant support from Pfizer and Lilly and serves or has served in a scientific advisory role with Novartis, Lilly, TAIHO Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, AstraZeneca, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, ARVINAS, Sanofi, Athenex, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He also holds minor stock options from Provista.

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

After making a controversial change in September to a long-standing recommendation about the use of active surveillance in men with prostate cancer, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has reversed course and reinstated its original advice, with a slight tweak.

The influential cancer organization, which is best known for its guidelines, now recommends that “most” men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option. This advice aligns closely with the group’s initial recommendation, published over a decade ago.

But controversy erupted in late September when the NCCN suddenly changed its tune on active surveillance, recommending that men with low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance, radiation therapy, or surgery, with equal weight given to all three.

The new advice angered physicians who support the concept of active surveillance, which aims to avoid or delay treatment — and potentially life-changing side effects — until signs of disease progression.

The NCCN listened to the complaints.

On Nov. 30, the group largely reverted back to the original recommendation. In updated guidelines, active surveillance returned to its place as the sole “preferred” management option, but for “most” men with low-risk disease, not all.

In an email sent to this news organization, Edward Schaeffer, MD, PhD, chair of the prostate cancer treatment panel, said that “the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel recently convened” and “extensively revised the Principles of Active Surveillance and Observation.”

Dr. Schaeffer, who is from the Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago, cited the heterogeneity across the low-risk disease group. Factors associated with an increased probability of near-term grade reclassification from low risk to higher risk include high PSA density, a high number of positive cores (≥ 3), high genomic risk (from tissue-based molecular tumor analysis), and/or a known BRCA2 germline mutation, he added.

Urologists cheered the NCCN’s reversal on Twitter.

“Big news! NCCN guidelines updated again — active surveillance is ‘preferred for most patients’ with low risk prostate cancer and life expectancy >=10 years,” tweeted Stacy Loeb of NYU Langone in New York City.

“Very exciting if true,” tweeted Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of University of California San Francisco, who was one of the most vocal critics of the NCCN’s change in September, calling that move a “step backward” that would likely lead to overtreatment.

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

After making a controversial change in September to a long-standing recommendation about the use of active surveillance in men with prostate cancer, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has reversed course and reinstated its original advice, with a slight tweak.

The influential cancer organization, which is best known for its guidelines, now recommends that “most” men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option. This advice aligns closely with the group’s initial recommendation, published over a decade ago.

But controversy erupted in late September when the NCCN suddenly changed its tune on active surveillance, recommending that men with low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance, radiation therapy, or surgery, with equal weight given to all three.

The new advice angered physicians who support the concept of active surveillance, which aims to avoid or delay treatment — and potentially life-changing side effects — until signs of disease progression.

The NCCN listened to the complaints.

On Nov. 30, the group largely reverted back to the original recommendation. In updated guidelines, active surveillance returned to its place as the sole “preferred” management option, but for “most” men with low-risk disease, not all.

In an email sent to this news organization, Edward Schaeffer, MD, PhD, chair of the prostate cancer treatment panel, said that “the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel recently convened” and “extensively revised the Principles of Active Surveillance and Observation.”

Dr. Schaeffer, who is from the Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago, cited the heterogeneity across the low-risk disease group. Factors associated with an increased probability of near-term grade reclassification from low risk to higher risk include high PSA density, a high number of positive cores (≥ 3), high genomic risk (from tissue-based molecular tumor analysis), and/or a known BRCA2 germline mutation, he added.

Urologists cheered the NCCN’s reversal on Twitter.

“Big news! NCCN guidelines updated again — active surveillance is ‘preferred for most patients’ with low risk prostate cancer and life expectancy >=10 years,” tweeted Stacy Loeb of NYU Langone in New York City.

“Very exciting if true,” tweeted Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of University of California San Francisco, who was one of the most vocal critics of the NCCN’s change in September, calling that move a “step backward” that would likely lead to overtreatment.

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

After making a controversial change in September to a long-standing recommendation about the use of active surveillance in men with prostate cancer, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has reversed course and reinstated its original advice, with a slight tweak.

The influential cancer organization, which is best known for its guidelines, now recommends that “most” men with low-risk prostate cancer be offered active surveillance as the lone “preferred” initial treatment option. This advice aligns closely with the group’s initial recommendation, published over a decade ago.

But controversy erupted in late September when the NCCN suddenly changed its tune on active surveillance, recommending that men with low-risk disease be managed with either active surveillance, radiation therapy, or surgery, with equal weight given to all three.

The new advice angered physicians who support the concept of active surveillance, which aims to avoid or delay treatment — and potentially life-changing side effects — until signs of disease progression.

The NCCN listened to the complaints.

On Nov. 30, the group largely reverted back to the original recommendation. In updated guidelines, active surveillance returned to its place as the sole “preferred” management option, but for “most” men with low-risk disease, not all.

In an email sent to this news organization, Edward Schaeffer, MD, PhD, chair of the prostate cancer treatment panel, said that “the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel recently convened” and “extensively revised the Principles of Active Surveillance and Observation.”

Dr. Schaeffer, who is from the Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University in Chicago, cited the heterogeneity across the low-risk disease group. Factors associated with an increased probability of near-term grade reclassification from low risk to higher risk include high PSA density, a high number of positive cores (≥ 3), high genomic risk (from tissue-based molecular tumor analysis), and/or a known BRCA2 germline mutation, he added.

Urologists cheered the NCCN’s reversal on Twitter.

“Big news! NCCN guidelines updated again — active surveillance is ‘preferred for most patients’ with low risk prostate cancer and life expectancy >=10 years,” tweeted Stacy Loeb of NYU Langone in New York City.

“Very exciting if true,” tweeted Matthew Cooperberg, MD, of University of California San Francisco, who was one of the most vocal critics of the NCCN’s change in September, calling that move a “step backward” that would likely lead to overtreatment.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pafolacianine (Cytalux), an imaging drug indicated for use in adult patients with ovarian cancer undergoing surgery.

The new drug “is designed to improve the ability to locate additional ovarian cancerous tissue that is normally difficult to detect during surgery,” according to the agency.

Pafolacianine, administered via intravenous injection prior to surgery, is the first FDA-approved tumor-targeted fluorescent agent for ovarian cancer.

In a press statement, drug inventor Philip Low, PhD, of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., said the agent causes ovarian cancer lesions to “light up like stars against a night sky.”

Improving detection of ovarian cancer lesions is critical given that ovarian cancer is one of the “deadliest of all female reproductive system cancers,” according to the American Cancer Society. The organization estimates that there will be more than 21,000 new cases and more than 13,000 deaths in 2021.

Currently, surgeons use preoperative imaging as well as visual inspection of tumors under normal light and examination by touch to identify ovarian cancer lesions.

Pafolacianine offers a new tool to enhance surgeons’ ability “to identify deadly ovarian tumors that may otherwise go undetected,” Alex Gorovets, MD, deputy director of the office of specialty medicine in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press statement.

Ovarian cancer often causes the body to overproduce the folate receptor protein in cell membranes. Pafolacianine, employed with a near-infrared fluorescence imaging system cleared by the FDA for use alongside the drug, binds to and illuminates these proteins under fluorescent light, “boosting surgeons’ ability to identify the cancerous tissue,” the agency in a statement.

The safety and effectiveness of pafolacianine was evaluated in a randomized, multi-center, open-label study of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer or with high clinical suspicion of ovarian cancer. Of the 134 women undergoing surgery who received a dose of pafolacianine and were evaluated under both normal and fluorescent light, 26.9% had at least one cancerous lesion detected that was not observed by standard visual or tactile inspection.

The most common side effects of pafolacianine were infusion-related reactions, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, flushing, dyspepsia, chest discomfort, itching, and hypersensitivity.

Pafolacianine may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. The use of folate, folic acid, or folate-containing supplements should be avoided within 48 hours before administration of pafolacianine. 

The FDA also cautioned about the possible risk of image interpretation errors, including false negatives and false positives, with the use of the new drug and near-infrared fluorescence imaging system.

The FDA previously granted pafolacianine orphan-drug, priority, and fast track designations.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pafolacianine (Cytalux), an imaging drug indicated for use in adult patients with ovarian cancer undergoing surgery.

The new drug “is designed to improve the ability to locate additional ovarian cancerous tissue that is normally difficult to detect during surgery,” according to the agency.

Pafolacianine, administered via intravenous injection prior to surgery, is the first FDA-approved tumor-targeted fluorescent agent for ovarian cancer.

In a press statement, drug inventor Philip Low, PhD, of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., said the agent causes ovarian cancer lesions to “light up like stars against a night sky.”

Improving detection of ovarian cancer lesions is critical given that ovarian cancer is one of the “deadliest of all female reproductive system cancers,” according to the American Cancer Society. The organization estimates that there will be more than 21,000 new cases and more than 13,000 deaths in 2021.

Currently, surgeons use preoperative imaging as well as visual inspection of tumors under normal light and examination by touch to identify ovarian cancer lesions.

Pafolacianine offers a new tool to enhance surgeons’ ability “to identify deadly ovarian tumors that may otherwise go undetected,” Alex Gorovets, MD, deputy director of the office of specialty medicine in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press statement.

Ovarian cancer often causes the body to overproduce the folate receptor protein in cell membranes. Pafolacianine, employed with a near-infrared fluorescence imaging system cleared by the FDA for use alongside the drug, binds to and illuminates these proteins under fluorescent light, “boosting surgeons’ ability to identify the cancerous tissue,” the agency in a statement.

The safety and effectiveness of pafolacianine was evaluated in a randomized, multi-center, open-label study of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer or with high clinical suspicion of ovarian cancer. Of the 134 women undergoing surgery who received a dose of pafolacianine and were evaluated under both normal and fluorescent light, 26.9% had at least one cancerous lesion detected that was not observed by standard visual or tactile inspection.

The most common side effects of pafolacianine were infusion-related reactions, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, flushing, dyspepsia, chest discomfort, itching, and hypersensitivity.

Pafolacianine may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. The use of folate, folic acid, or folate-containing supplements should be avoided within 48 hours before administration of pafolacianine. 

The FDA also cautioned about the possible risk of image interpretation errors, including false negatives and false positives, with the use of the new drug and near-infrared fluorescence imaging system.

The FDA previously granted pafolacianine orphan-drug, priority, and fast track designations.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pafolacianine (Cytalux), an imaging drug indicated for use in adult patients with ovarian cancer undergoing surgery.

The new drug “is designed to improve the ability to locate additional ovarian cancerous tissue that is normally difficult to detect during surgery,” according to the agency.

Pafolacianine, administered via intravenous injection prior to surgery, is the first FDA-approved tumor-targeted fluorescent agent for ovarian cancer.

In a press statement, drug inventor Philip Low, PhD, of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., said the agent causes ovarian cancer lesions to “light up like stars against a night sky.”

Improving detection of ovarian cancer lesions is critical given that ovarian cancer is one of the “deadliest of all female reproductive system cancers,” according to the American Cancer Society. The organization estimates that there will be more than 21,000 new cases and more than 13,000 deaths in 2021.

Currently, surgeons use preoperative imaging as well as visual inspection of tumors under normal light and examination by touch to identify ovarian cancer lesions.

Pafolacianine offers a new tool to enhance surgeons’ ability “to identify deadly ovarian tumors that may otherwise go undetected,” Alex Gorovets, MD, deputy director of the office of specialty medicine in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press statement.

Ovarian cancer often causes the body to overproduce the folate receptor protein in cell membranes. Pafolacianine, employed with a near-infrared fluorescence imaging system cleared by the FDA for use alongside the drug, binds to and illuminates these proteins under fluorescent light, “boosting surgeons’ ability to identify the cancerous tissue,” the agency in a statement.

The safety and effectiveness of pafolacianine was evaluated in a randomized, multi-center, open-label study of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer or with high clinical suspicion of ovarian cancer. Of the 134 women undergoing surgery who received a dose of pafolacianine and were evaluated under both normal and fluorescent light, 26.9% had at least one cancerous lesion detected that was not observed by standard visual or tactile inspection.

The most common side effects of pafolacianine were infusion-related reactions, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, flushing, dyspepsia, chest discomfort, itching, and hypersensitivity.

Pafolacianine may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. The use of folate, folic acid, or folate-containing supplements should be avoided within 48 hours before administration of pafolacianine. 

The FDA also cautioned about the possible risk of image interpretation errors, including false negatives and false positives, with the use of the new drug and near-infrared fluorescence imaging system.

The FDA previously granted pafolacianine orphan-drug, priority, and fast track designations.

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