AVAHO

It may not be always necessary to approach the treatment of HER2-positive, hormone receptor–negative (HER2+/HR–) early breast cancer with added chemotherapy, survival results of a prospective multicenter randomized trial suggest.

In the ADAPT-HER2+/HR– trial, comparing a de-escalated 12-week neoadjuvant regimen consisting of dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and pertuzumab (Perjeta) with or without weekly paclitaxel, the three-drug regimen was associated with high pathologic complete response(pCR) rates and excellent 5-year survival, irrespective of whether patients received additional chemotherapy, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

“Chemotherapy-free regimens are promising in highly sensitive tumors with early response, but future investigation of such chemotherapy-free regimens need to be focused on selected patients, like those with HER2 3+ tumors, non–basal-like tumors, those showing early response to the de-escalated therapy, and those with predictive RNA signatures such as immune signatures,” she said in an oral abstract session during the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 503).
 

Under the WGS umbrella

The ADAPT HER2+/HR– trial (NCT01779206) is one of several conducted by the West German Study Group (WGS) on therapy for intrinsic breast cancer types.

In this study, 134 patients with HER2-positive, estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative tumors with no metastatic disease and good performance status were assigned on a 5:2 basis to neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg for the first cycle followed by 6 mg/kg for subsequent cycles every 3 weeks x 4, plus pertuzumab at a loading dose of 840 mg followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks x 4 (92 patients), or to trastuzumab and pertuzumab at the same dose and schedule plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m² once weekly for 12 weeks.

Patients had surgery within 3 weeks of the end of study therapy unless they did not have a histologically confirmed pCR, in which case they went on to receive standard neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery.

Adjuvant therapy was performed according to national guidelines, although patients with a pCR after 12 weeks of study therapy could be spared from adjuvant chemotherapy at the investigator’s discretion.

Patients underwent biopsy at 3 weeks for therapy for early response assessment, defined as either a Ki67 decrease of at least 30% from baseline, or low cellularity (less than 500 invasive tumor cells).
 

First survival results

The investigators previously reported the primary pCR endpoint from the trial, which showed a rate of 90% after 12 weeks in the three-drug arm, and a “substantial and clinically meaningful” pCR rate of 34% after the trastuzumab plus pertuzumab alone.

At ASCO 2021, Dr. Harbeck reported the first survival data from the trial.

After a median follow-up of 59.9 months, there were no statistically significant differences between trial arms in either overall survival, invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), or distant disease-free survival (dDFS).

The 5-year iDFS rate in the three-drug arm was 98%, compared with 87% for the dual HER2 blockade-only arm, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The 5-year dDFS rates were 98% and 92% respectively. There were only seven dDFS events during follow-up, Dr. Harbeck noted.

There were only six deaths during follow-up, with overall survival rates of 98% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, and 94% in the anti-HER2 antibodies–only arm, a difference of one overall survival event, Dr. Harbeck said.
 

pCR counts

However, patients who did not have pathologic complete responses at the end of first-line de-escalated therapy had worse outcomes, with a 5-year iDFS rate of 82%, compared with 98% for patients who had achieved a pCR. This translated into a hazard ratio for invasive disease in patients with pCRs of 0.14 (P = .011).

This difference occurred despite the study requirement that all patients who did not have pCR after 12 weeks of initial therapy would receive additional chemotherapy.

Looking at the tumor subtype among patients in the paclitaxel-free arm to see whether they could identify predictors of early response, the researchers found a pCR rate of 36.5% among 85 patients with nonbasal tumors, but 0% among 7 patients with basal tumors.

The investigators identified a population of patients whose tumors could be considered nonsensitive to dual HER2 blockade alone: Those with basal tumors, those tumors with low immunohistochemical HER2 expression, and those without an early response to therapy on biopsy 3 weeks into initial therapy. Among 31 of the 92 patients in the dual HER2 arm who met this description, 2 had pCRs, Dr. Harbeck noted.

The 5-year iDFS rate among patients in the dual blockade–only arm with nonsensitive tumors was 79%, compared with 93% for patients with treatment-responsive types, although there were only 13 invasive events total in this arm.

“If we look at the whole trial population, the negative prognostic impact of what we termed nonsensitive tumors was even significant regarding dDFS, with a hazard ratio of about 5,” she said.
 

‘A consistent theme’

Invited discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, ScM, of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, noted that the trial was underpowered for outcomes, but that results nonetheless suggest that patients with strongly HER2-driven tumors might get comparable benefits from less chemotherapy.

“This trial included only hormone receptor–negative, HER2-positive tumors, and these we know are likely to be HER2-enriched in terms of subtype, about three-quarters of them,”she said.

The previously reported pCR rate of 90% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, with 80% of patients requiring no further chemotherapy, resulted in the excellent 5-year iDFS and dDFS in this group, despite the relatively highly clinical stage, with about 60% of patients having clinical stage 2 or higher tumors, and more than 40% being node positive.

The idea that pCR itself can predict which patients could be spared from more intensive chemotherapy “is starting to look like a consistent theme,” she said.

Dr. Carey pointed out that in the KRISTINE trial comparing the combination of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and pertuzumab with standard chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer, although the experimental combination was associated with lower pCR rates and worse event-free survival, rates of iDFS/dDFS were virtually identical for patients in both arms who achieved a pCR.

“So the question is can pCR mean that we can either eliminate additional therapy,” she said, noting that the question is currently being addressed prospectively in two clinical trials, COMPASS-pCR and DECRESCENDO.

ADAPT HER2+/HR- is sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Harbeck disclosed institutional research funding from Roche/Genentech, as well as honoraria and consulting/advising for multiple companies. Dr. Carey disclosed institutional research funding and other relationships with various companies.

It may not be always necessary to approach the treatment of HER2-positive, hormone receptor–negative (HER2+/HR–) early breast cancer with added chemotherapy, survival results of a prospective multicenter randomized trial suggest.

In the ADAPT-HER2+/HR– trial, comparing a de-escalated 12-week neoadjuvant regimen consisting of dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and pertuzumab (Perjeta) with or without weekly paclitaxel, the three-drug regimen was associated with high pathologic complete response(pCR) rates and excellent 5-year survival, irrespective of whether patients received additional chemotherapy, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

“Chemotherapy-free regimens are promising in highly sensitive tumors with early response, but future investigation of such chemotherapy-free regimens need to be focused on selected patients, like those with HER2 3+ tumors, non–basal-like tumors, those showing early response to the de-escalated therapy, and those with predictive RNA signatures such as immune signatures,” she said in an oral abstract session during the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 503).
 

Under the WGS umbrella

The ADAPT HER2+/HR– trial (NCT01779206) is one of several conducted by the West German Study Group (WGS) on therapy for intrinsic breast cancer types.

In this study, 134 patients with HER2-positive, estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative tumors with no metastatic disease and good performance status were assigned on a 5:2 basis to neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg for the first cycle followed by 6 mg/kg for subsequent cycles every 3 weeks x 4, plus pertuzumab at a loading dose of 840 mg followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks x 4 (92 patients), or to trastuzumab and pertuzumab at the same dose and schedule plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m² once weekly for 12 weeks.

Patients had surgery within 3 weeks of the end of study therapy unless they did not have a histologically confirmed pCR, in which case they went on to receive standard neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery.

Adjuvant therapy was performed according to national guidelines, although patients with a pCR after 12 weeks of study therapy could be spared from adjuvant chemotherapy at the investigator’s discretion.

Patients underwent biopsy at 3 weeks for therapy for early response assessment, defined as either a Ki67 decrease of at least 30% from baseline, or low cellularity (less than 500 invasive tumor cells).
 

First survival results

The investigators previously reported the primary pCR endpoint from the trial, which showed a rate of 90% after 12 weeks in the three-drug arm, and a “substantial and clinically meaningful” pCR rate of 34% after the trastuzumab plus pertuzumab alone.

At ASCO 2021, Dr. Harbeck reported the first survival data from the trial.

After a median follow-up of 59.9 months, there were no statistically significant differences between trial arms in either overall survival, invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), or distant disease-free survival (dDFS).

The 5-year iDFS rate in the three-drug arm was 98%, compared with 87% for the dual HER2 blockade-only arm, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The 5-year dDFS rates were 98% and 92% respectively. There were only seven dDFS events during follow-up, Dr. Harbeck noted.

There were only six deaths during follow-up, with overall survival rates of 98% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, and 94% in the anti-HER2 antibodies–only arm, a difference of one overall survival event, Dr. Harbeck said.
 

pCR counts

However, patients who did not have pathologic complete responses at the end of first-line de-escalated therapy had worse outcomes, with a 5-year iDFS rate of 82%, compared with 98% for patients who had achieved a pCR. This translated into a hazard ratio for invasive disease in patients with pCRs of 0.14 (P = .011).

This difference occurred despite the study requirement that all patients who did not have pCR after 12 weeks of initial therapy would receive additional chemotherapy.

Looking at the tumor subtype among patients in the paclitaxel-free arm to see whether they could identify predictors of early response, the researchers found a pCR rate of 36.5% among 85 patients with nonbasal tumors, but 0% among 7 patients with basal tumors.

The investigators identified a population of patients whose tumors could be considered nonsensitive to dual HER2 blockade alone: Those with basal tumors, those tumors with low immunohistochemical HER2 expression, and those without an early response to therapy on biopsy 3 weeks into initial therapy. Among 31 of the 92 patients in the dual HER2 arm who met this description, 2 had pCRs, Dr. Harbeck noted.

The 5-year iDFS rate among patients in the dual blockade–only arm with nonsensitive tumors was 79%, compared with 93% for patients with treatment-responsive types, although there were only 13 invasive events total in this arm.

“If we look at the whole trial population, the negative prognostic impact of what we termed nonsensitive tumors was even significant regarding dDFS, with a hazard ratio of about 5,” she said.
 

‘A consistent theme’

Invited discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, ScM, of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, noted that the trial was underpowered for outcomes, but that results nonetheless suggest that patients with strongly HER2-driven tumors might get comparable benefits from less chemotherapy.

“This trial included only hormone receptor–negative, HER2-positive tumors, and these we know are likely to be HER2-enriched in terms of subtype, about three-quarters of them,”she said.

The previously reported pCR rate of 90% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, with 80% of patients requiring no further chemotherapy, resulted in the excellent 5-year iDFS and dDFS in this group, despite the relatively highly clinical stage, with about 60% of patients having clinical stage 2 or higher tumors, and more than 40% being node positive.

The idea that pCR itself can predict which patients could be spared from more intensive chemotherapy “is starting to look like a consistent theme,” she said.

Dr. Carey pointed out that in the KRISTINE trial comparing the combination of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and pertuzumab with standard chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer, although the experimental combination was associated with lower pCR rates and worse event-free survival, rates of iDFS/dDFS were virtually identical for patients in both arms who achieved a pCR.

“So the question is can pCR mean that we can either eliminate additional therapy,” she said, noting that the question is currently being addressed prospectively in two clinical trials, COMPASS-pCR and DECRESCENDO.

ADAPT HER2+/HR- is sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Harbeck disclosed institutional research funding from Roche/Genentech, as well as honoraria and consulting/advising for multiple companies. Dr. Carey disclosed institutional research funding and other relationships with various companies.

It may not be always necessary to approach the treatment of HER2-positive, hormone receptor–negative (HER2+/HR–) early breast cancer with added chemotherapy, survival results of a prospective multicenter randomized trial suggest.

In the ADAPT-HER2+/HR– trial, comparing a de-escalated 12-week neoadjuvant regimen consisting of dual HER2 blockade with trastuzumab (Herceptin) and pertuzumab (Perjeta) with or without weekly paclitaxel, the three-drug regimen was associated with high pathologic complete response(pCR) rates and excellent 5-year survival, irrespective of whether patients received additional chemotherapy, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

“Chemotherapy-free regimens are promising in highly sensitive tumors with early response, but future investigation of such chemotherapy-free regimens need to be focused on selected patients, like those with HER2 3+ tumors, non–basal-like tumors, those showing early response to the de-escalated therapy, and those with predictive RNA signatures such as immune signatures,” she said in an oral abstract session during the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 503).
 

Under the WGS umbrella

The ADAPT HER2+/HR– trial (NCT01779206) is one of several conducted by the West German Study Group (WGS) on therapy for intrinsic breast cancer types.

In this study, 134 patients with HER2-positive, estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative tumors with no metastatic disease and good performance status were assigned on a 5:2 basis to neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg for the first cycle followed by 6 mg/kg for subsequent cycles every 3 weeks x 4, plus pertuzumab at a loading dose of 840 mg followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks x 4 (92 patients), or to trastuzumab and pertuzumab at the same dose and schedule plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m² once weekly for 12 weeks.

Patients had surgery within 3 weeks of the end of study therapy unless they did not have a histologically confirmed pCR, in which case they went on to receive standard neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery.

Adjuvant therapy was performed according to national guidelines, although patients with a pCR after 12 weeks of study therapy could be spared from adjuvant chemotherapy at the investigator’s discretion.

Patients underwent biopsy at 3 weeks for therapy for early response assessment, defined as either a Ki67 decrease of at least 30% from baseline, or low cellularity (less than 500 invasive tumor cells).
 

First survival results

The investigators previously reported the primary pCR endpoint from the trial, which showed a rate of 90% after 12 weeks in the three-drug arm, and a “substantial and clinically meaningful” pCR rate of 34% after the trastuzumab plus pertuzumab alone.

At ASCO 2021, Dr. Harbeck reported the first survival data from the trial.

After a median follow-up of 59.9 months, there were no statistically significant differences between trial arms in either overall survival, invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), or distant disease-free survival (dDFS).

The 5-year iDFS rate in the three-drug arm was 98%, compared with 87% for the dual HER2 blockade-only arm, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The 5-year dDFS rates were 98% and 92% respectively. There were only seven dDFS events during follow-up, Dr. Harbeck noted.

There were only six deaths during follow-up, with overall survival rates of 98% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, and 94% in the anti-HER2 antibodies–only arm, a difference of one overall survival event, Dr. Harbeck said.
 

pCR counts

However, patients who did not have pathologic complete responses at the end of first-line de-escalated therapy had worse outcomes, with a 5-year iDFS rate of 82%, compared with 98% for patients who had achieved a pCR. This translated into a hazard ratio for invasive disease in patients with pCRs of 0.14 (P = .011).

This difference occurred despite the study requirement that all patients who did not have pCR after 12 weeks of initial therapy would receive additional chemotherapy.

Looking at the tumor subtype among patients in the paclitaxel-free arm to see whether they could identify predictors of early response, the researchers found a pCR rate of 36.5% among 85 patients with nonbasal tumors, but 0% among 7 patients with basal tumors.

The investigators identified a population of patients whose tumors could be considered nonsensitive to dual HER2 blockade alone: Those with basal tumors, those tumors with low immunohistochemical HER2 expression, and those without an early response to therapy on biopsy 3 weeks into initial therapy. Among 31 of the 92 patients in the dual HER2 arm who met this description, 2 had pCRs, Dr. Harbeck noted.

The 5-year iDFS rate among patients in the dual blockade–only arm with nonsensitive tumors was 79%, compared with 93% for patients with treatment-responsive types, although there were only 13 invasive events total in this arm.

“If we look at the whole trial population, the negative prognostic impact of what we termed nonsensitive tumors was even significant regarding dDFS, with a hazard ratio of about 5,” she said.
 

‘A consistent theme’

Invited discussant Lisa A. Carey, MD, ScM, of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, noted that the trial was underpowered for outcomes, but that results nonetheless suggest that patients with strongly HER2-driven tumors might get comparable benefits from less chemotherapy.

“This trial included only hormone receptor–negative, HER2-positive tumors, and these we know are likely to be HER2-enriched in terms of subtype, about three-quarters of them,”she said.

The previously reported pCR rate of 90% in the paclitaxel-containing arm, with 80% of patients requiring no further chemotherapy, resulted in the excellent 5-year iDFS and dDFS in this group, despite the relatively highly clinical stage, with about 60% of patients having clinical stage 2 or higher tumors, and more than 40% being node positive.

The idea that pCR itself can predict which patients could be spared from more intensive chemotherapy “is starting to look like a consistent theme,” she said.

Dr. Carey pointed out that in the KRISTINE trial comparing the combination of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and pertuzumab with standard chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer, although the experimental combination was associated with lower pCR rates and worse event-free survival, rates of iDFS/dDFS were virtually identical for patients in both arms who achieved a pCR.

“So the question is can pCR mean that we can either eliminate additional therapy,” she said, noting that the question is currently being addressed prospectively in two clinical trials, COMPASS-pCR and DECRESCENDO.

ADAPT HER2+/HR- is sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Harbeck disclosed institutional research funding from Roche/Genentech, as well as honoraria and consulting/advising for multiple companies. Dr. Carey disclosed institutional research funding and other relationships with various companies.

A new survey of sexual harassment among U.S. oncologists has found that 70% reported incidents from peers and/or supervisors in the previous 12 months.

The incidence was higher among women than men (80% vs. 56%), a difference that was statistically significant (P < .0001).

However, after experiencing sexual harassment from coworkers, men and women were alike in terms of reporting similarly negative outcomes in mental health, sense of safety, and turnover intentions (e.g., leaving or quitting).

“Our findings demonstrate that the impact of sexual harassment on both men and women is tangible and is not different,” said lead author Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, during her presentation of the study on June 5 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021. The meeting was held virtually because of the pandemic.

“The survey’s recall period [about harassment] was in the previous 12 months. The respondents weren’t reflecting on a lifetime of events,” Dr. Subbiah said in an interview. “That’s part of what makes the findings that much more sobering.”

The release of the survey results roughly coincided with a furor within oncology circles over details that have now come to light about Axel Grothey, MD, a high-profile medical oncologist who was forced out of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., after having unethical sexual relations with mentees – only to move on to another major center with more mentees.

The new survey, which included 153 women and 118 men, was conducted in 2020.

Overall, 69% of respondents reported gender-based harassment, 17% reported unwanted sexual attention, and 3% reported sexual coercion from peers/supervisors. For the three types of sexual harassment, women reported higher rates of incidence; the greatest proportional disparity was in unwanted sexual attention (22% of women vs. 9% of men).

The types of sexual harassment are defined in a landmark 2018 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gender harassment is nonverbal or verbal behaviors that are hostile, objectifying, and excluding of or conveying second-class status about a gender. Unwanted sexual attention is advances, including touching, and seeking a sexual relationship despite discouragement. Sexual coercion involves seeking compliance with sexual demands by making job-related threats or promising job-related benefits.

The commonality in the three harassments is their being “unwanted,” Dr. Subbiah explained.

Another commonality is that “sexual harassment is a tool of power that one person yields over another,” commented Marina Stasenko, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Dr. Stasenko led a 2018 study that found that 64% of U.S. gynecologic oncologists reported sexual harassment during training or practice, a much longer recall period than the 1 year in Dr. Subbiah’s study.

However, things may be changing regarding sexual harassment – at least in terms of victims speaking out, said Dr. Stasenko. Perhaps discussing personal experience “is becoming less taboo,” she told this news organization. “The media spotlight on sexual harassment within medicine has been bright [recently].”

That was borne out last week – a number of oncologists who had been harassed told their stories on Twitter in reaction to the report about Dr. Grothey at one of America’s top medical centers. Also, in another sign of the moment, an academic oncologist publicly said that rumors about Dr. Grothey were long-standing. “Heard from many colleagues that this behavior was known in the field and went on for years. Years,” tweeted Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Other outcomes seem to make Dr. Grothey’s behavior at Mayo, which multiple oncologists said has occurred at every center, a watershed moment. Namely, he has been muted or dismissed by an array of organizations since the story broke.

ASCO disallowed Dr. Grothey from making presentations at the annual meeting (he was an author on 12 studies), the National Cancer Institute removed him from his position as co-chair of an influential steering committee that helps determine grant funding for research, and the OneOncology community care network dropped him as medical director of their research arm, as reported by The Cancer Letter. He was also removed from the OncoAlert Network, a global network of oncology professionals, and from the medical advisory board of Fight CRC, an advocacy group for patients with colorectal cancer, as reported by this news organization. His current employer, West Cancer Center, in Germantown, Tennessee, has also started an investigation.

In her presentation, Dr. Subbiah acknowledged a changing landscape, with “increasing attention in recent years” to sexual harassment thanks to the “broader cultural movements” of #metoo and #TIMESUP social media–based campaigns.

Another oncologist nodded to the recent news about Dr. Grothey at the Mayo Clinic and suggested Dr. Subbiah’s study was part of a historic struggle for equity for women. “Sadly, both timely and timeless,” tweeted medical oncologist Tatiana Prowell, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, about the new study.
 

Academia has a problem

To conduct their survey, Dr. Subbiah and her coinvestigators reached out to 1,000 randomly selected U.S. members of ASCO via the organization’s research survey pool, as well as through Twitter and Facebook. The invitation to participate described the survey as being about the “workplace experience of oncologists” and that it aimed to mitigate response bias.

Of the 271 survey respondents, 250 were oncologists in practice and 21 were residents/fellows. Nearly all were heterosexual (94%) and U.S. citizens (87%). A majority (53%) were White, 35% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 11% were Black or Hispanic. Most (68%) were more than 5 years out from training.

Most of the respondents (62%) were from academia.

“There is a big problem of sexual harassment in academic medicine,” said Pamela Kunz, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., who was asked for comment. Dr. Kunz left Stanford University in 2020 after 19 years, citing repeated harassment.

“The institutions tend to protect the brand rather than the victim. Perpetrators are often not disciplined and may leave an institution under cover of a resignation only to go on and receive a better leadership role at another institution,” she said in an interview.

A “revolution” is needed to address the problem, Dr. Kunz said, citing needs to routinely discuss the topic, systems to measure and track it, methods to hold perpetrators accountable, and meaningful educational opportunities.
 

Harassment from patients/families also tallied

The new survey also queried participants with regard to sexual harassment from patients and/or families, which was reported by 67% of women and 35% of men (P < .0001).

As with harassment from peers/supervisors, gender harassment was the most common form and was reported by significantly higher percentages of women.

And as with coworkers, sexual harassment from patients/families was also significantly associated with detriments to mental health, workplace safety, and turnover intentions.

Sexual harassment from “insiders” (P = .001) but not patients (P = .55) was significantly associated with a decrease in a fourth metric in the study – job satisfaction.

“The goal of medicine and oncology is ‘ultimately to ease suffering,’” Dr. Subbiah said. That holds true for workplace wellness, including addressing harassment. “There should be no hesitation to go there and look at what is truly impacting the workplace,” she said.

“This is a difficult topic,” Dr. Subbiah acknowledged, adding that “the findings are sobering and merit open, global conversation among all oncology stakeholders.”

The study authors, Dr. Ganz, and Dr. Stasenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey of sexual harassment among U.S. oncologists has found that 70% reported incidents from peers and/or supervisors in the previous 12 months.

The incidence was higher among women than men (80% vs. 56%), a difference that was statistically significant (P < .0001).

However, after experiencing sexual harassment from coworkers, men and women were alike in terms of reporting similarly negative outcomes in mental health, sense of safety, and turnover intentions (e.g., leaving or quitting).

“Our findings demonstrate that the impact of sexual harassment on both men and women is tangible and is not different,” said lead author Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, during her presentation of the study on June 5 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021. The meeting was held virtually because of the pandemic.

“The survey’s recall period [about harassment] was in the previous 12 months. The respondents weren’t reflecting on a lifetime of events,” Dr. Subbiah said in an interview. “That’s part of what makes the findings that much more sobering.”

The release of the survey results roughly coincided with a furor within oncology circles over details that have now come to light about Axel Grothey, MD, a high-profile medical oncologist who was forced out of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., after having unethical sexual relations with mentees – only to move on to another major center with more mentees.

The new survey, which included 153 women and 118 men, was conducted in 2020.

Overall, 69% of respondents reported gender-based harassment, 17% reported unwanted sexual attention, and 3% reported sexual coercion from peers/supervisors. For the three types of sexual harassment, women reported higher rates of incidence; the greatest proportional disparity was in unwanted sexual attention (22% of women vs. 9% of men).

The types of sexual harassment are defined in a landmark 2018 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gender harassment is nonverbal or verbal behaviors that are hostile, objectifying, and excluding of or conveying second-class status about a gender. Unwanted sexual attention is advances, including touching, and seeking a sexual relationship despite discouragement. Sexual coercion involves seeking compliance with sexual demands by making job-related threats or promising job-related benefits.

The commonality in the three harassments is their being “unwanted,” Dr. Subbiah explained.

Another commonality is that “sexual harassment is a tool of power that one person yields over another,” commented Marina Stasenko, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Dr. Stasenko led a 2018 study that found that 64% of U.S. gynecologic oncologists reported sexual harassment during training or practice, a much longer recall period than the 1 year in Dr. Subbiah’s study.

However, things may be changing regarding sexual harassment – at least in terms of victims speaking out, said Dr. Stasenko. Perhaps discussing personal experience “is becoming less taboo,” she told this news organization. “The media spotlight on sexual harassment within medicine has been bright [recently].”

That was borne out last week – a number of oncologists who had been harassed told their stories on Twitter in reaction to the report about Dr. Grothey at one of America’s top medical centers. Also, in another sign of the moment, an academic oncologist publicly said that rumors about Dr. Grothey were long-standing. “Heard from many colleagues that this behavior was known in the field and went on for years. Years,” tweeted Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Other outcomes seem to make Dr. Grothey’s behavior at Mayo, which multiple oncologists said has occurred at every center, a watershed moment. Namely, he has been muted or dismissed by an array of organizations since the story broke.

ASCO disallowed Dr. Grothey from making presentations at the annual meeting (he was an author on 12 studies), the National Cancer Institute removed him from his position as co-chair of an influential steering committee that helps determine grant funding for research, and the OneOncology community care network dropped him as medical director of their research arm, as reported by The Cancer Letter. He was also removed from the OncoAlert Network, a global network of oncology professionals, and from the medical advisory board of Fight CRC, an advocacy group for patients with colorectal cancer, as reported by this news organization. His current employer, West Cancer Center, in Germantown, Tennessee, has also started an investigation.

In her presentation, Dr. Subbiah acknowledged a changing landscape, with “increasing attention in recent years” to sexual harassment thanks to the “broader cultural movements” of #metoo and #TIMESUP social media–based campaigns.

Another oncologist nodded to the recent news about Dr. Grothey at the Mayo Clinic and suggested Dr. Subbiah’s study was part of a historic struggle for equity for women. “Sadly, both timely and timeless,” tweeted medical oncologist Tatiana Prowell, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, about the new study.
 

Academia has a problem

To conduct their survey, Dr. Subbiah and her coinvestigators reached out to 1,000 randomly selected U.S. members of ASCO via the organization’s research survey pool, as well as through Twitter and Facebook. The invitation to participate described the survey as being about the “workplace experience of oncologists” and that it aimed to mitigate response bias.

Of the 271 survey respondents, 250 were oncologists in practice and 21 were residents/fellows. Nearly all were heterosexual (94%) and U.S. citizens (87%). A majority (53%) were White, 35% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 11% were Black or Hispanic. Most (68%) were more than 5 years out from training.

Most of the respondents (62%) were from academia.

“There is a big problem of sexual harassment in academic medicine,” said Pamela Kunz, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., who was asked for comment. Dr. Kunz left Stanford University in 2020 after 19 years, citing repeated harassment.

“The institutions tend to protect the brand rather than the victim. Perpetrators are often not disciplined and may leave an institution under cover of a resignation only to go on and receive a better leadership role at another institution,” she said in an interview.

A “revolution” is needed to address the problem, Dr. Kunz said, citing needs to routinely discuss the topic, systems to measure and track it, methods to hold perpetrators accountable, and meaningful educational opportunities.
 

Harassment from patients/families also tallied

The new survey also queried participants with regard to sexual harassment from patients and/or families, which was reported by 67% of women and 35% of men (P < .0001).

As with harassment from peers/supervisors, gender harassment was the most common form and was reported by significantly higher percentages of women.

And as with coworkers, sexual harassment from patients/families was also significantly associated with detriments to mental health, workplace safety, and turnover intentions.

Sexual harassment from “insiders” (P = .001) but not patients (P = .55) was significantly associated with a decrease in a fourth metric in the study – job satisfaction.

“The goal of medicine and oncology is ‘ultimately to ease suffering,’” Dr. Subbiah said. That holds true for workplace wellness, including addressing harassment. “There should be no hesitation to go there and look at what is truly impacting the workplace,” she said.

“This is a difficult topic,” Dr. Subbiah acknowledged, adding that “the findings are sobering and merit open, global conversation among all oncology stakeholders.”

The study authors, Dr. Ganz, and Dr. Stasenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey of sexual harassment among U.S. oncologists has found that 70% reported incidents from peers and/or supervisors in the previous 12 months.

The incidence was higher among women than men (80% vs. 56%), a difference that was statistically significant (P < .0001).

However, after experiencing sexual harassment from coworkers, men and women were alike in terms of reporting similarly negative outcomes in mental health, sense of safety, and turnover intentions (e.g., leaving or quitting).

“Our findings demonstrate that the impact of sexual harassment on both men and women is tangible and is not different,” said lead author Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, during her presentation of the study on June 5 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021. The meeting was held virtually because of the pandemic.

“The survey’s recall period [about harassment] was in the previous 12 months. The respondents weren’t reflecting on a lifetime of events,” Dr. Subbiah said in an interview. “That’s part of what makes the findings that much more sobering.”

The release of the survey results roughly coincided with a furor within oncology circles over details that have now come to light about Axel Grothey, MD, a high-profile medical oncologist who was forced out of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., after having unethical sexual relations with mentees – only to move on to another major center with more mentees.

The new survey, which included 153 women and 118 men, was conducted in 2020.

Overall, 69% of respondents reported gender-based harassment, 17% reported unwanted sexual attention, and 3% reported sexual coercion from peers/supervisors. For the three types of sexual harassment, women reported higher rates of incidence; the greatest proportional disparity was in unwanted sexual attention (22% of women vs. 9% of men).

The types of sexual harassment are defined in a landmark 2018 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gender harassment is nonverbal or verbal behaviors that are hostile, objectifying, and excluding of or conveying second-class status about a gender. Unwanted sexual attention is advances, including touching, and seeking a sexual relationship despite discouragement. Sexual coercion involves seeking compliance with sexual demands by making job-related threats or promising job-related benefits.

The commonality in the three harassments is their being “unwanted,” Dr. Subbiah explained.

Another commonality is that “sexual harassment is a tool of power that one person yields over another,” commented Marina Stasenko, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Dr. Stasenko led a 2018 study that found that 64% of U.S. gynecologic oncologists reported sexual harassment during training or practice, a much longer recall period than the 1 year in Dr. Subbiah’s study.

However, things may be changing regarding sexual harassment – at least in terms of victims speaking out, said Dr. Stasenko. Perhaps discussing personal experience “is becoming less taboo,” she told this news organization. “The media spotlight on sexual harassment within medicine has been bright [recently].”

That was borne out last week – a number of oncologists who had been harassed told their stories on Twitter in reaction to the report about Dr. Grothey at one of America’s top medical centers. Also, in another sign of the moment, an academic oncologist publicly said that rumors about Dr. Grothey were long-standing. “Heard from many colleagues that this behavior was known in the field and went on for years. Years,” tweeted Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Other outcomes seem to make Dr. Grothey’s behavior at Mayo, which multiple oncologists said has occurred at every center, a watershed moment. Namely, he has been muted or dismissed by an array of organizations since the story broke.

ASCO disallowed Dr. Grothey from making presentations at the annual meeting (he was an author on 12 studies), the National Cancer Institute removed him from his position as co-chair of an influential steering committee that helps determine grant funding for research, and the OneOncology community care network dropped him as medical director of their research arm, as reported by The Cancer Letter. He was also removed from the OncoAlert Network, a global network of oncology professionals, and from the medical advisory board of Fight CRC, an advocacy group for patients with colorectal cancer, as reported by this news organization. His current employer, West Cancer Center, in Germantown, Tennessee, has also started an investigation.

In her presentation, Dr. Subbiah acknowledged a changing landscape, with “increasing attention in recent years” to sexual harassment thanks to the “broader cultural movements” of #metoo and #TIMESUP social media–based campaigns.

Another oncologist nodded to the recent news about Dr. Grothey at the Mayo Clinic and suggested Dr. Subbiah’s study was part of a historic struggle for equity for women. “Sadly, both timely and timeless,” tweeted medical oncologist Tatiana Prowell, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, about the new study.
 

Academia has a problem

To conduct their survey, Dr. Subbiah and her coinvestigators reached out to 1,000 randomly selected U.S. members of ASCO via the organization’s research survey pool, as well as through Twitter and Facebook. The invitation to participate described the survey as being about the “workplace experience of oncologists” and that it aimed to mitigate response bias.

Of the 271 survey respondents, 250 were oncologists in practice and 21 were residents/fellows. Nearly all were heterosexual (94%) and U.S. citizens (87%). A majority (53%) were White, 35% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 11% were Black or Hispanic. Most (68%) were more than 5 years out from training.

Most of the respondents (62%) were from academia.

“There is a big problem of sexual harassment in academic medicine,” said Pamela Kunz, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., who was asked for comment. Dr. Kunz left Stanford University in 2020 after 19 years, citing repeated harassment.

“The institutions tend to protect the brand rather than the victim. Perpetrators are often not disciplined and may leave an institution under cover of a resignation only to go on and receive a better leadership role at another institution,” she said in an interview.

A “revolution” is needed to address the problem, Dr. Kunz said, citing needs to routinely discuss the topic, systems to measure and track it, methods to hold perpetrators accountable, and meaningful educational opportunities.
 

Harassment from patients/families also tallied

The new survey also queried participants with regard to sexual harassment from patients and/or families, which was reported by 67% of women and 35% of men (P < .0001).

As with harassment from peers/supervisors, gender harassment was the most common form and was reported by significantly higher percentages of women.

And as with coworkers, sexual harassment from patients/families was also significantly associated with detriments to mental health, workplace safety, and turnover intentions.

Sexual harassment from “insiders” (P = .001) but not patients (P = .55) was significantly associated with a decrease in a fourth metric in the study – job satisfaction.

“The goal of medicine and oncology is ‘ultimately to ease suffering,’” Dr. Subbiah said. That holds true for workplace wellness, including addressing harassment. “There should be no hesitation to go there and look at what is truly impacting the workplace,” she said.

“This is a difficult topic,” Dr. Subbiah acknowledged, adding that “the findings are sobering and merit open, global conversation among all oncology stakeholders.”

The study authors, Dr. Ganz, and Dr. Stasenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not impede the feasibility or timing of surgery in patients with resectable lung cancer, according to results from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial.

Adding nivolumab to chemotherapy was tolerable and did not increase the rate of surgical complications, investigator Jonathan Spicer, FRCPC, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

His presentation comes about 2 months after the reporting of primary endpoint results of CheckMate 816 (NCT02998528). CheckMate 816 demonstrated that adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results presented earlier at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“The safety and surgical outcome data reported thus far from CheckMate 816, along with significant improvement in pathological complete response, support nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy as an attractive neoadjuvant option for patients with resectable NSCLC,” said Dr. Spicer (Abstract 8503).
 

Building on previous experience

The CheckMate 816 study builds on extensive experience in advanced NSCLC that has consistently shown better outcomes, including overall survival, with combinations of chemotherapy and immuno-oncology (IO) agents, compared to chemotherapy alone, said discussant Valerie W. Rusch, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rusch called out “salient and interesting results” regarding surgical management in CheckMate 816, including a lower rate of surgery cancellations and shorter surgical duration in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Furthermore, fewer patients required a pneumonectomy and more patients had a complete resection in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to chemotherapy alone, she noted.

“These excellent surgical results, along with the data previously presented at AACR regarding the primary endpoint, help to establish a new standard of neoadjuvant care,” Dr. Rusch said in her presentation.
 

Study details

CheckMate 816 included 358 patients with newly diagnosed, resectable, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy (nivolumab/chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone every 3 weeks, with surgery to be performed within 6 weeks of the last dose of neoadjuvant treatment.

The median age of patients was 64 years in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 65 years in the chemotherapy-alone arm. About one-third of patients had ECOG performance status of one, and about half had squamous tumor histology, Dr. Spicer said in his report. Almost two-thirds of patients had stage IIIA disease.

In the study results previously presented at the AACR meeting, both pCR and major pathologic response were significantly better following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IO treatment, compared to chemotherapy alone.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 24.0% of patients treated with nivolumab/chemotherapy achieved a pCR, compared to 2.2% in the chemotherapy arm, amounting to an approximate 12-fold increase in pCR, Dr. Spicer said. Similarly, the rate of major pathologic response in the intention-to-treat analysis was 36.9% and 8.9% for the nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.
 

Surgical results

In his ASCO presentation, Dr. Spicer reported that definitive surgery was canceled in 16% of patients in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, and 21% of the chemotherapy arm. Reasons for surgery cancellation generally included patients declining surgery, unresectable disease, and poor lung function. “Cancellation of surgery due to neoadjuvant therapy toxicity was rare,” Dr. Spicer said in his presentation.

Among patients who did proceed to surgery, the median duration of the procedure was 184 minutes in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 217 minutes in the chemotherapy arm. That half-hour difference in favor of the combination arm suggests that the complexity of surgery was not increased by the addition of nivolumab, Dr. Spicer said.

Median time to surgery was about 5 weeks in both arms, which was “well within accepted standards for a neoadjuvant therapeutic approach,” Dr. Spicer said. Most delays beyond 6 weeks were due to administrative issues, and occurred in similar proportions (21% of the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 18% of the chemotherapy arm).

The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy improved pCR rates regardless of baseline stage of disease, according to Dr. Spicer. Furthermore, the depth of pathological regression in the primary tumor was “dramatically different” across stage groupings, he said. Median residual viable tumor percentage in stage IB/II patients was 28% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 79% for chemotherapy, and in stage IIIA patients, it was 8% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 70% for chemotherapy.

Overall, thoracotomy was the most frequent surgical approach in this international phase 3 trial, Dr. Spicer said. However, among patients with stage IIIA disease, minimally invasive approaches were used 30% of the time in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 19% in the chemotherapy arm. Conversely, the rate of conversion from a minimally invasive to open approach in patients with stage IIIA disease was 11% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 20% for chemotherapy alone.

Lobectomy was more frequent in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (77%) compared to the chemotherapy arm (61%), a difference that Dr. Spicer described as clinically important. He said the difference appears to be attributable to a lower rate of pneumonectomy in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (17%) than in the chemotherapy arm (25%).

Despite less extensive lung resection being required, the rate of R0 resection was numerically higher in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (83%) than in the chemotherapy arm (78%), said Dr. Spicer.

Length of hospital stay was “within expected ranges” from geographic regions represented in the trial, Dr. Spicer said. Median length of stay was 4.0 and 6.0 days, respectively, for nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone in North America, 9.5 and 13.0 days in Europe, and 11.0 and 13.0 days in Asia.

Likewise, 90-day surgical complications were well within expected ranges, according to the investigator, with anemia, pain, and wound complications being the most commonly reported. Rates were generally similar between study arms, other than a twofold higher rate of pain in the chemotherapy arm, possibly due to the lower rate of minimally invasive surgery or higher rate of conversion to an open procedure, compared to the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, he said.
 

Awaiting survival

Rates of 30- and 90-day mortality are expected to be evaluated when survival endpoints are available, according to Dr. Spicer. Beyond pCR rate, event-free survival is also a primary endpoint of the study, while overall survival is a secondary endpoint.

The study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Spicer reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Rusch reported research funding with Genelux and Genentech, and travel expenses from Intuitive Surgical.

The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not impede the feasibility or timing of surgery in patients with resectable lung cancer, according to results from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial.

Adding nivolumab to chemotherapy was tolerable and did not increase the rate of surgical complications, investigator Jonathan Spicer, FRCPC, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

His presentation comes about 2 months after the reporting of primary endpoint results of CheckMate 816 (NCT02998528). CheckMate 816 demonstrated that adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results presented earlier at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“The safety and surgical outcome data reported thus far from CheckMate 816, along with significant improvement in pathological complete response, support nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy as an attractive neoadjuvant option for patients with resectable NSCLC,” said Dr. Spicer (Abstract 8503).
 

Building on previous experience

The CheckMate 816 study builds on extensive experience in advanced NSCLC that has consistently shown better outcomes, including overall survival, with combinations of chemotherapy and immuno-oncology (IO) agents, compared to chemotherapy alone, said discussant Valerie W. Rusch, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rusch called out “salient and interesting results” regarding surgical management in CheckMate 816, including a lower rate of surgery cancellations and shorter surgical duration in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Furthermore, fewer patients required a pneumonectomy and more patients had a complete resection in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to chemotherapy alone, she noted.

“These excellent surgical results, along with the data previously presented at AACR regarding the primary endpoint, help to establish a new standard of neoadjuvant care,” Dr. Rusch said in her presentation.
 

Study details

CheckMate 816 included 358 patients with newly diagnosed, resectable, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy (nivolumab/chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone every 3 weeks, with surgery to be performed within 6 weeks of the last dose of neoadjuvant treatment.

The median age of patients was 64 years in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 65 years in the chemotherapy-alone arm. About one-third of patients had ECOG performance status of one, and about half had squamous tumor histology, Dr. Spicer said in his report. Almost two-thirds of patients had stage IIIA disease.

In the study results previously presented at the AACR meeting, both pCR and major pathologic response were significantly better following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IO treatment, compared to chemotherapy alone.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 24.0% of patients treated with nivolumab/chemotherapy achieved a pCR, compared to 2.2% in the chemotherapy arm, amounting to an approximate 12-fold increase in pCR, Dr. Spicer said. Similarly, the rate of major pathologic response in the intention-to-treat analysis was 36.9% and 8.9% for the nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.
 

Surgical results

In his ASCO presentation, Dr. Spicer reported that definitive surgery was canceled in 16% of patients in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, and 21% of the chemotherapy arm. Reasons for surgery cancellation generally included patients declining surgery, unresectable disease, and poor lung function. “Cancellation of surgery due to neoadjuvant therapy toxicity was rare,” Dr. Spicer said in his presentation.

Among patients who did proceed to surgery, the median duration of the procedure was 184 minutes in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 217 minutes in the chemotherapy arm. That half-hour difference in favor of the combination arm suggests that the complexity of surgery was not increased by the addition of nivolumab, Dr. Spicer said.

Median time to surgery was about 5 weeks in both arms, which was “well within accepted standards for a neoadjuvant therapeutic approach,” Dr. Spicer said. Most delays beyond 6 weeks were due to administrative issues, and occurred in similar proportions (21% of the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 18% of the chemotherapy arm).

The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy improved pCR rates regardless of baseline stage of disease, according to Dr. Spicer. Furthermore, the depth of pathological regression in the primary tumor was “dramatically different” across stage groupings, he said. Median residual viable tumor percentage in stage IB/II patients was 28% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 79% for chemotherapy, and in stage IIIA patients, it was 8% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 70% for chemotherapy.

Overall, thoracotomy was the most frequent surgical approach in this international phase 3 trial, Dr. Spicer said. However, among patients with stage IIIA disease, minimally invasive approaches were used 30% of the time in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 19% in the chemotherapy arm. Conversely, the rate of conversion from a minimally invasive to open approach in patients with stage IIIA disease was 11% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 20% for chemotherapy alone.

Lobectomy was more frequent in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (77%) compared to the chemotherapy arm (61%), a difference that Dr. Spicer described as clinically important. He said the difference appears to be attributable to a lower rate of pneumonectomy in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (17%) than in the chemotherapy arm (25%).

Despite less extensive lung resection being required, the rate of R0 resection was numerically higher in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (83%) than in the chemotherapy arm (78%), said Dr. Spicer.

Length of hospital stay was “within expected ranges” from geographic regions represented in the trial, Dr. Spicer said. Median length of stay was 4.0 and 6.0 days, respectively, for nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone in North America, 9.5 and 13.0 days in Europe, and 11.0 and 13.0 days in Asia.

Likewise, 90-day surgical complications were well within expected ranges, according to the investigator, with anemia, pain, and wound complications being the most commonly reported. Rates were generally similar between study arms, other than a twofold higher rate of pain in the chemotherapy arm, possibly due to the lower rate of minimally invasive surgery or higher rate of conversion to an open procedure, compared to the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, he said.
 

Awaiting survival

Rates of 30- and 90-day mortality are expected to be evaluated when survival endpoints are available, according to Dr. Spicer. Beyond pCR rate, event-free survival is also a primary endpoint of the study, while overall survival is a secondary endpoint.

The study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Spicer reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Rusch reported research funding with Genelux and Genentech, and travel expenses from Intuitive Surgical.

The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not impede the feasibility or timing of surgery in patients with resectable lung cancer, according to results from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial.

Adding nivolumab to chemotherapy was tolerable and did not increase the rate of surgical complications, investigator Jonathan Spicer, FRCPC, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

His presentation comes about 2 months after the reporting of primary endpoint results of CheckMate 816 (NCT02998528). CheckMate 816 demonstrated that adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results presented earlier at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“The safety and surgical outcome data reported thus far from CheckMate 816, along with significant improvement in pathological complete response, support nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy as an attractive neoadjuvant option for patients with resectable NSCLC,” said Dr. Spicer (Abstract 8503).
 

Building on previous experience

The CheckMate 816 study builds on extensive experience in advanced NSCLC that has consistently shown better outcomes, including overall survival, with combinations of chemotherapy and immuno-oncology (IO) agents, compared to chemotherapy alone, said discussant Valerie W. Rusch, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rusch called out “salient and interesting results” regarding surgical management in CheckMate 816, including a lower rate of surgery cancellations and shorter surgical duration in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Furthermore, fewer patients required a pneumonectomy and more patients had a complete resection in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to chemotherapy alone, she noted.

“These excellent surgical results, along with the data previously presented at AACR regarding the primary endpoint, help to establish a new standard of neoadjuvant care,” Dr. Rusch said in her presentation.
 

Study details

CheckMate 816 included 358 patients with newly diagnosed, resectable, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy (nivolumab/chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone every 3 weeks, with surgery to be performed within 6 weeks of the last dose of neoadjuvant treatment.

The median age of patients was 64 years in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 65 years in the chemotherapy-alone arm. About one-third of patients had ECOG performance status of one, and about half had squamous tumor histology, Dr. Spicer said in his report. Almost two-thirds of patients had stage IIIA disease.

In the study results previously presented at the AACR meeting, both pCR and major pathologic response were significantly better following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IO treatment, compared to chemotherapy alone.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 24.0% of patients treated with nivolumab/chemotherapy achieved a pCR, compared to 2.2% in the chemotherapy arm, amounting to an approximate 12-fold increase in pCR, Dr. Spicer said. Similarly, the rate of major pathologic response in the intention-to-treat analysis was 36.9% and 8.9% for the nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.
 

Surgical results

In his ASCO presentation, Dr. Spicer reported that definitive surgery was canceled in 16% of patients in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, and 21% of the chemotherapy arm. Reasons for surgery cancellation generally included patients declining surgery, unresectable disease, and poor lung function. “Cancellation of surgery due to neoadjuvant therapy toxicity was rare,” Dr. Spicer said in his presentation.

Among patients who did proceed to surgery, the median duration of the procedure was 184 minutes in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 217 minutes in the chemotherapy arm. That half-hour difference in favor of the combination arm suggests that the complexity of surgery was not increased by the addition of nivolumab, Dr. Spicer said.

Median time to surgery was about 5 weeks in both arms, which was “well within accepted standards for a neoadjuvant therapeutic approach,” Dr. Spicer said. Most delays beyond 6 weeks were due to administrative issues, and occurred in similar proportions (21% of the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 18% of the chemotherapy arm).

The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy improved pCR rates regardless of baseline stage of disease, according to Dr. Spicer. Furthermore, the depth of pathological regression in the primary tumor was “dramatically different” across stage groupings, he said. Median residual viable tumor percentage in stage IB/II patients was 28% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 79% for chemotherapy, and in stage IIIA patients, it was 8% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 70% for chemotherapy.

Overall, thoracotomy was the most frequent surgical approach in this international phase 3 trial, Dr. Spicer said. However, among patients with stage IIIA disease, minimally invasive approaches were used 30% of the time in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 19% in the chemotherapy arm. Conversely, the rate of conversion from a minimally invasive to open approach in patients with stage IIIA disease was 11% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 20% for chemotherapy alone.

Lobectomy was more frequent in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (77%) compared to the chemotherapy arm (61%), a difference that Dr. Spicer described as clinically important. He said the difference appears to be attributable to a lower rate of pneumonectomy in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (17%) than in the chemotherapy arm (25%).

Despite less extensive lung resection being required, the rate of R0 resection was numerically higher in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (83%) than in the chemotherapy arm (78%), said Dr. Spicer.

Length of hospital stay was “within expected ranges” from geographic regions represented in the trial, Dr. Spicer said. Median length of stay was 4.0 and 6.0 days, respectively, for nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone in North America, 9.5 and 13.0 days in Europe, and 11.0 and 13.0 days in Asia.

Likewise, 90-day surgical complications were well within expected ranges, according to the investigator, with anemia, pain, and wound complications being the most commonly reported. Rates were generally similar between study arms, other than a twofold higher rate of pain in the chemotherapy arm, possibly due to the lower rate of minimally invasive surgery or higher rate of conversion to an open procedure, compared to the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, he said.
 

Awaiting survival

Rates of 30- and 90-day mortality are expected to be evaluated when survival endpoints are available, according to Dr. Spicer. Beyond pCR rate, event-free survival is also a primary endpoint of the study, while overall survival is a secondary endpoint.

The study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Spicer reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Rusch reported research funding with Genelux and Genentech, and travel expenses from Intuitive Surgical.

A simple nasal swab may help in the diagnosis of lung cancer in smokers who have undergone CT screening and had lung nodules detected on the scan.  

Only about 5% of the nearly 1.6 million lung nodules identified as incidental findings on low-dose CT screening tests will turn out to be malignant. The new test helps to distinguish between benign and malignant nodules, say researchers reporting a validation study.  

The results show that the test identified those at low risk for cancer with a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 41.7%, as well as identifying those as high risk, with a specificity of 90.4% and sensitivity of 58.2%.

The Percepta nasal swab is a first-of-its-kind genomic test, says the manufacturer Veracyte.

It is based on “field of injury” technology, which examines genomic changes in the lining of the respiratory tract for evidence of active cancer cells, coupled with a machine learning model that includes factors such as age, gender, and smoking history.

Veracyte hopes to begin to make the test available to a select number of sites in the second half of 2021. “The test is intended to be performed in the physician’s office on patients referred with suspicious lung nodules found on CT scans,” said Giulia C. Kennedy, PhD, chief scientific officer and chief medical officer at Veracyte. “This could include patients with nodules found through screening programs, as well as incidentally.”

“It will be made available as a laboratory developed test in the U.S. through Veracyte’s centralized CLIA laboratory,” she said in an interview. “In global markets, we will offer the test as an IVD product that can be performed on the nCounter instrument by laboratories locally. Outside of the United States, the test will require a CE mark, which we are equipped to support.”

Results with the test were presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held virtually this year.

It was first tested in a training set, which consisted of more than 1,100 patients. All were current or former smokers who had a lung nodule detected on chest CT scanning and were followed for up to 1 year or until a final diagnosis of lung cancer or benign disease.

Brushings of the nasal epithelium were prospectively collected in patients with lung nodules from multiple cohorts.

A total of 502 genes were used in the classifier, and performance was evaluated in an independent clinical validation set consisting of 249 patients.

The test identified true benign patients as low risk with 41.7% specificity and 96.3% sensitivity, resulting in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.1% in a population with a cancer prevalence of 25%. The risk of malignancy for patients in this low-risk group was less than 3% (1-NPV), and for this group, clinical guidelines recommend surveillance.  

Patients with true malignancies were identified as high risk, with 58.2% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity, resulting in a positive predictive value of 67.0% in a population with 25% cancer prevalence. The risk of malignancy for patients deemed to be high risk by the classifier was 67.0%, which exceeds the current guideline threshold for consideration of surgical resection or other ablative therapy if a staging evaluation confirms early stage disease, the authors point out.  

The remaining patients, who did not meet the stringent cut-offs for low or high risk, were identified as intermediate risk. In this population, the prevalence of malignancy for patients identified as intermediate risk was 20.7%, which is consistent with guidelines that provide a range for intermediate-risk patients as between 5% and 65% for whom diagnostic biopsy is recommended.
 

Help guide decisions, more data needed

Approached by this news organization for independent comment, Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, medical oncologist, Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, explained that the study provides an interesting way to look at a common finding and lung nodules and to predict whether further workup should be done.

“This could provide a role in reassurance that patients who fall into the low-risk category could be observed with serial imaging rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy,” he said. “It falls in under the ‘field of injury’ principle.”

Dr. Spira noted that although the low-risk group appears to have a negative predictive value of >90%, it doesn’t mean that the patient would require no further workup. “It would require CT surveillance rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy, and at this point it does appear promising, but I would want further follow-up in terms of outcomes,” he said.

“This does not apply to nonsmokers, which is of increasing prevalence, but with the increased use of CT screening for patients with a history of tobacco use, it may indeed have a role.”

He also pointed out that while the idea is to avoid biopsies, the smaller lesions are the ones that are concerning. “They are often tough to get at, and it would also depend on patient choice and anxiety as well, given the chance of being in that low percentage that the test misses,” said Dr. Spira. “Lastly, many pulmonologists are ordering PET scans in lieu of a biopsy, and this may also help.”

The bottom line is that this may help guide clinical decisions, but more data are needed. “Even in the low-risk category, 9.4% of patients had a malignancy, which is still a high miss rate,” he added.

The study was funded by Veracyte. Dr. Kennedy is employed by Veracyte. Dr. Spira has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A simple nasal swab may help in the diagnosis of lung cancer in smokers who have undergone CT screening and had lung nodules detected on the scan.  

Only about 5% of the nearly 1.6 million lung nodules identified as incidental findings on low-dose CT screening tests will turn out to be malignant. The new test helps to distinguish between benign and malignant nodules, say researchers reporting a validation study.  

The results show that the test identified those at low risk for cancer with a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 41.7%, as well as identifying those as high risk, with a specificity of 90.4% and sensitivity of 58.2%.

The Percepta nasal swab is a first-of-its-kind genomic test, says the manufacturer Veracyte.

It is based on “field of injury” technology, which examines genomic changes in the lining of the respiratory tract for evidence of active cancer cells, coupled with a machine learning model that includes factors such as age, gender, and smoking history.

Veracyte hopes to begin to make the test available to a select number of sites in the second half of 2021. “The test is intended to be performed in the physician’s office on patients referred with suspicious lung nodules found on CT scans,” said Giulia C. Kennedy, PhD, chief scientific officer and chief medical officer at Veracyte. “This could include patients with nodules found through screening programs, as well as incidentally.”

“It will be made available as a laboratory developed test in the U.S. through Veracyte’s centralized CLIA laboratory,” she said in an interview. “In global markets, we will offer the test as an IVD product that can be performed on the nCounter instrument by laboratories locally. Outside of the United States, the test will require a CE mark, which we are equipped to support.”

Results with the test were presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held virtually this year.

It was first tested in a training set, which consisted of more than 1,100 patients. All were current or former smokers who had a lung nodule detected on chest CT scanning and were followed for up to 1 year or until a final diagnosis of lung cancer or benign disease.

Brushings of the nasal epithelium were prospectively collected in patients with lung nodules from multiple cohorts.

A total of 502 genes were used in the classifier, and performance was evaluated in an independent clinical validation set consisting of 249 patients.

The test identified true benign patients as low risk with 41.7% specificity and 96.3% sensitivity, resulting in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.1% in a population with a cancer prevalence of 25%. The risk of malignancy for patients in this low-risk group was less than 3% (1-NPV), and for this group, clinical guidelines recommend surveillance.  

Patients with true malignancies were identified as high risk, with 58.2% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity, resulting in a positive predictive value of 67.0% in a population with 25% cancer prevalence. The risk of malignancy for patients deemed to be high risk by the classifier was 67.0%, which exceeds the current guideline threshold for consideration of surgical resection or other ablative therapy if a staging evaluation confirms early stage disease, the authors point out.  

The remaining patients, who did not meet the stringent cut-offs for low or high risk, were identified as intermediate risk. In this population, the prevalence of malignancy for patients identified as intermediate risk was 20.7%, which is consistent with guidelines that provide a range for intermediate-risk patients as between 5% and 65% for whom diagnostic biopsy is recommended.
 

Help guide decisions, more data needed

Approached by this news organization for independent comment, Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, medical oncologist, Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, explained that the study provides an interesting way to look at a common finding and lung nodules and to predict whether further workup should be done.

“This could provide a role in reassurance that patients who fall into the low-risk category could be observed with serial imaging rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy,” he said. “It falls in under the ‘field of injury’ principle.”

Dr. Spira noted that although the low-risk group appears to have a negative predictive value of >90%, it doesn’t mean that the patient would require no further workup. “It would require CT surveillance rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy, and at this point it does appear promising, but I would want further follow-up in terms of outcomes,” he said.

“This does not apply to nonsmokers, which is of increasing prevalence, but with the increased use of CT screening for patients with a history of tobacco use, it may indeed have a role.”

He also pointed out that while the idea is to avoid biopsies, the smaller lesions are the ones that are concerning. “They are often tough to get at, and it would also depend on patient choice and anxiety as well, given the chance of being in that low percentage that the test misses,” said Dr. Spira. “Lastly, many pulmonologists are ordering PET scans in lieu of a biopsy, and this may also help.”

The bottom line is that this may help guide clinical decisions, but more data are needed. “Even in the low-risk category, 9.4% of patients had a malignancy, which is still a high miss rate,” he added.

The study was funded by Veracyte. Dr. Kennedy is employed by Veracyte. Dr. Spira has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A simple nasal swab may help in the diagnosis of lung cancer in smokers who have undergone CT screening and had lung nodules detected on the scan.  

Only about 5% of the nearly 1.6 million lung nodules identified as incidental findings on low-dose CT screening tests will turn out to be malignant. The new test helps to distinguish between benign and malignant nodules, say researchers reporting a validation study.  

The results show that the test identified those at low risk for cancer with a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 41.7%, as well as identifying those as high risk, with a specificity of 90.4% and sensitivity of 58.2%.

The Percepta nasal swab is a first-of-its-kind genomic test, says the manufacturer Veracyte.

It is based on “field of injury” technology, which examines genomic changes in the lining of the respiratory tract for evidence of active cancer cells, coupled with a machine learning model that includes factors such as age, gender, and smoking history.

Veracyte hopes to begin to make the test available to a select number of sites in the second half of 2021. “The test is intended to be performed in the physician’s office on patients referred with suspicious lung nodules found on CT scans,” said Giulia C. Kennedy, PhD, chief scientific officer and chief medical officer at Veracyte. “This could include patients with nodules found through screening programs, as well as incidentally.”

“It will be made available as a laboratory developed test in the U.S. through Veracyte’s centralized CLIA laboratory,” she said in an interview. “In global markets, we will offer the test as an IVD product that can be performed on the nCounter instrument by laboratories locally. Outside of the United States, the test will require a CE mark, which we are equipped to support.”

Results with the test were presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held virtually this year.

It was first tested in a training set, which consisted of more than 1,100 patients. All were current or former smokers who had a lung nodule detected on chest CT scanning and were followed for up to 1 year or until a final diagnosis of lung cancer or benign disease.

Brushings of the nasal epithelium were prospectively collected in patients with lung nodules from multiple cohorts.

A total of 502 genes were used in the classifier, and performance was evaluated in an independent clinical validation set consisting of 249 patients.

The test identified true benign patients as low risk with 41.7% specificity and 96.3% sensitivity, resulting in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.1% in a population with a cancer prevalence of 25%. The risk of malignancy for patients in this low-risk group was less than 3% (1-NPV), and for this group, clinical guidelines recommend surveillance.  

Patients with true malignancies were identified as high risk, with 58.2% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity, resulting in a positive predictive value of 67.0% in a population with 25% cancer prevalence. The risk of malignancy for patients deemed to be high risk by the classifier was 67.0%, which exceeds the current guideline threshold for consideration of surgical resection or other ablative therapy if a staging evaluation confirms early stage disease, the authors point out.  

The remaining patients, who did not meet the stringent cut-offs for low or high risk, were identified as intermediate risk. In this population, the prevalence of malignancy for patients identified as intermediate risk was 20.7%, which is consistent with guidelines that provide a range for intermediate-risk patients as between 5% and 65% for whom diagnostic biopsy is recommended.
 

Help guide decisions, more data needed

Approached by this news organization for independent comment, Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, medical oncologist, Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, explained that the study provides an interesting way to look at a common finding and lung nodules and to predict whether further workup should be done.

“This could provide a role in reassurance that patients who fall into the low-risk category could be observed with serial imaging rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy,” he said. “It falls in under the ‘field of injury’ principle.”

Dr. Spira noted that although the low-risk group appears to have a negative predictive value of >90%, it doesn’t mean that the patient would require no further workup. “It would require CT surveillance rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy, and at this point it does appear promising, but I would want further follow-up in terms of outcomes,” he said.

“This does not apply to nonsmokers, which is of increasing prevalence, but with the increased use of CT screening for patients with a history of tobacco use, it may indeed have a role.”

He also pointed out that while the idea is to avoid biopsies, the smaller lesions are the ones that are concerning. “They are often tough to get at, and it would also depend on patient choice and anxiety as well, given the chance of being in that low percentage that the test misses,” said Dr. Spira. “Lastly, many pulmonologists are ordering PET scans in lieu of a biopsy, and this may also help.”

The bottom line is that this may help guide clinical decisions, but more data are needed. “Even in the low-risk category, 9.4% of patients had a malignancy, which is still a high miss rate,” he added.

The study was funded by Veracyte. Dr. Kennedy is employed by Veracyte. Dr. Spira has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lung cancer patients could soon have their risk of dying over the following 3 months accurately predicted by analyzing their urine samples, allowing them to better prepare for their end of life, say U.K. researchers.

Dr. Seamus Coyle, consultant in palliative medicine, the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, and colleagues studied urine samples from more than 100 lung cancer patients, deriving a model based on their metabolite profile.

This allowed patients to be divided into high- and low-risk groups for dying over the following 3 months, with an accuracy of 88%.

The model “predicts dying … for every single day for the last 3 months of life,” Dr. Coyle said.

“That’s an outstanding prediction,” Dr. Coyle added, “based on the fact that people actively die over 2 to 3 days on average,” while “some die over a day.”

He continued: “It’s the only test that predicts dying within the last 2 weeks of life, and that’s what I’m passionate about: The earlier recognition of dying.”

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

‘Promising and important pilot study’

Dr. Nathan Pennell, an ASCO expert, told this news organization that “predicting the actual ‘time’ someone has left is more of an art than a science.”

“For people who may be closer to death, this would potentially allow more focus on supportive care and allow families and patients to plan more accurately for supporting their loved one through the dying process.”

He continued that “while this is a promising and important pilot study, there is more work to be done before this could be used in practice.”

For example, the treatment status of the patients was not clear.

“Were these patients all in hospice, or were some undergoing treatment which, if effective, could ‘rescue’ them from their poor prognostic state?”

Dr. Pennell continued: “Would measuring kidney function be just as good? Is this something that could be intervened upon?

“For example, if someone has a high-risk score for dying, could medical intervention to treat an infection or some other modifiable action change that ‘fate’?”
 

Death ‘difficult to predict’

Dr. Coyle began by saying that, while for him recognizing that a patient is dying is the start of good end of life care, “recognizing dying accurately, when someone is in the last days of life, is difficult.”

He noted that the 2019 National Audit of Care at the End of Life found that people were recognized to be dying at median of 34 hours before death, with 20% recognized in the last 8 hours.

Moreover, 50% of people who are dying “are unconscious and unable to be involved in any conversation that [is] pertinent to them.”

In an attempt to better predict the onset of dying, the researchers conducted a prospective, longitudinal study in which 424 urine samples were collected from 162 lung cancer patients from six centers.

Of those, 63 patients gave a sample within the last 28 days of life, and 29 within the last week of life.

Urine samples were analyzed using a liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer for 112 patients, who had a median age of 71 years and a range of 47-89 years, and 40.2% were female. The most common diagnosis was non–small cell lung cancer, in 55.4%, while 19.6% had small cell lung cancer.

Performing Cox Lasso regression analysis on the “hundreds of metabolites” identified in the urine samples, the team developed an End of Life Metabolome (ELM) that predicted an individual’s risk of dying over the following 3 months.

Kaplan-Meier analysis allowed the patients to be divided into five risk groups based on their ELM (P < .001 for trend), which showed that all patients in the lowest-risk group were still alive after more than 2 months following the urine sample.

In contrast, more than 50% of patients in the highest-risk group died within 1 week of their urine sample being taken, and 100% had died within 3 weeks.

Calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve revealed that the ELM was able to predict the risk of dying for every day for the last 3 months of life with an accuracy of 88%.

ELM is being validated in a new cohort of lung cancer patients and it is being assessed in multiple cancers.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust UK and North West Cancer Research UK.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Lung cancer patients could soon have their risk of dying over the following 3 months accurately predicted by analyzing their urine samples, allowing them to better prepare for their end of life, say U.K. researchers.

Dr. Seamus Coyle, consultant in palliative medicine, the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, and colleagues studied urine samples from more than 100 lung cancer patients, deriving a model based on their metabolite profile.

This allowed patients to be divided into high- and low-risk groups for dying over the following 3 months, with an accuracy of 88%.

The model “predicts dying … for every single day for the last 3 months of life,” Dr. Coyle said.

“That’s an outstanding prediction,” Dr. Coyle added, “based on the fact that people actively die over 2 to 3 days on average,” while “some die over a day.”

He continued: “It’s the only test that predicts dying within the last 2 weeks of life, and that’s what I’m passionate about: The earlier recognition of dying.”

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

‘Promising and important pilot study’

Dr. Nathan Pennell, an ASCO expert, told this news organization that “predicting the actual ‘time’ someone has left is more of an art than a science.”

“For people who may be closer to death, this would potentially allow more focus on supportive care and allow families and patients to plan more accurately for supporting their loved one through the dying process.”

He continued that “while this is a promising and important pilot study, there is more work to be done before this could be used in practice.”

For example, the treatment status of the patients was not clear.

“Were these patients all in hospice, or were some undergoing treatment which, if effective, could ‘rescue’ them from their poor prognostic state?”

Dr. Pennell continued: “Would measuring kidney function be just as good? Is this something that could be intervened upon?

“For example, if someone has a high-risk score for dying, could medical intervention to treat an infection or some other modifiable action change that ‘fate’?”
 

Death ‘difficult to predict’

Dr. Coyle began by saying that, while for him recognizing that a patient is dying is the start of good end of life care, “recognizing dying accurately, when someone is in the last days of life, is difficult.”

He noted that the 2019 National Audit of Care at the End of Life found that people were recognized to be dying at median of 34 hours before death, with 20% recognized in the last 8 hours.

Moreover, 50% of people who are dying “are unconscious and unable to be involved in any conversation that [is] pertinent to them.”

In an attempt to better predict the onset of dying, the researchers conducted a prospective, longitudinal study in which 424 urine samples were collected from 162 lung cancer patients from six centers.

Of those, 63 patients gave a sample within the last 28 days of life, and 29 within the last week of life.

Urine samples were analyzed using a liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer for 112 patients, who had a median age of 71 years and a range of 47-89 years, and 40.2% were female. The most common diagnosis was non–small cell lung cancer, in 55.4%, while 19.6% had small cell lung cancer.

Performing Cox Lasso regression analysis on the “hundreds of metabolites” identified in the urine samples, the team developed an End of Life Metabolome (ELM) that predicted an individual’s risk of dying over the following 3 months.

Kaplan-Meier analysis allowed the patients to be divided into five risk groups based on their ELM (P < .001 for trend), which showed that all patients in the lowest-risk group were still alive after more than 2 months following the urine sample.

In contrast, more than 50% of patients in the highest-risk group died within 1 week of their urine sample being taken, and 100% had died within 3 weeks.

Calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve revealed that the ELM was able to predict the risk of dying for every day for the last 3 months of life with an accuracy of 88%.

ELM is being validated in a new cohort of lung cancer patients and it is being assessed in multiple cancers.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust UK and North West Cancer Research UK.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Lung cancer patients could soon have their risk of dying over the following 3 months accurately predicted by analyzing their urine samples, allowing them to better prepare for their end of life, say U.K. researchers.

Dr. Seamus Coyle, consultant in palliative medicine, the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, and colleagues studied urine samples from more than 100 lung cancer patients, deriving a model based on their metabolite profile.

This allowed patients to be divided into high- and low-risk groups for dying over the following 3 months, with an accuracy of 88%.

The model “predicts dying … for every single day for the last 3 months of life,” Dr. Coyle said.

“That’s an outstanding prediction,” Dr. Coyle added, “based on the fact that people actively die over 2 to 3 days on average,” while “some die over a day.”

He continued: “It’s the only test that predicts dying within the last 2 weeks of life, and that’s what I’m passionate about: The earlier recognition of dying.”

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

‘Promising and important pilot study’

Dr. Nathan Pennell, an ASCO expert, told this news organization that “predicting the actual ‘time’ someone has left is more of an art than a science.”

“For people who may be closer to death, this would potentially allow more focus on supportive care and allow families and patients to plan more accurately for supporting their loved one through the dying process.”

He continued that “while this is a promising and important pilot study, there is more work to be done before this could be used in practice.”

For example, the treatment status of the patients was not clear.

“Were these patients all in hospice, or were some undergoing treatment which, if effective, could ‘rescue’ them from their poor prognostic state?”

Dr. Pennell continued: “Would measuring kidney function be just as good? Is this something that could be intervened upon?

“For example, if someone has a high-risk score for dying, could medical intervention to treat an infection or some other modifiable action change that ‘fate’?”
 

Death ‘difficult to predict’

Dr. Coyle began by saying that, while for him recognizing that a patient is dying is the start of good end of life care, “recognizing dying accurately, when someone is in the last days of life, is difficult.”

He noted that the 2019 National Audit of Care at the End of Life found that people were recognized to be dying at median of 34 hours before death, with 20% recognized in the last 8 hours.

Moreover, 50% of people who are dying “are unconscious and unable to be involved in any conversation that [is] pertinent to them.”

In an attempt to better predict the onset of dying, the researchers conducted a prospective, longitudinal study in which 424 urine samples were collected from 162 lung cancer patients from six centers.

Of those, 63 patients gave a sample within the last 28 days of life, and 29 within the last week of life.

Urine samples were analyzed using a liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer for 112 patients, who had a median age of 71 years and a range of 47-89 years, and 40.2% were female. The most common diagnosis was non–small cell lung cancer, in 55.4%, while 19.6% had small cell lung cancer.

Performing Cox Lasso regression analysis on the “hundreds of metabolites” identified in the urine samples, the team developed an End of Life Metabolome (ELM) that predicted an individual’s risk of dying over the following 3 months.

Kaplan-Meier analysis allowed the patients to be divided into five risk groups based on their ELM (P < .001 for trend), which showed that all patients in the lowest-risk group were still alive after more than 2 months following the urine sample.

In contrast, more than 50% of patients in the highest-risk group died within 1 week of their urine sample being taken, and 100% had died within 3 weeks.

Calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve revealed that the ELM was able to predict the risk of dying for every day for the last 3 months of life with an accuracy of 88%.

ELM is being validated in a new cohort of lung cancer patients and it is being assessed in multiple cancers.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust UK and North West Cancer Research UK.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

An online support tool for health care professionals that recommends whether to admit or discharge a cancer patient with COVID-19, based on their risk of a severe complication, has been developed by researchers from Manchester.

The team used machine learning on data from more than 900 cancer patients with COVID-19, conducting multiple analyses to arrive at a set of features that could accurately predict the need for admission or oxygen therapy, as well as the risk of death.

Dr. Rebecca Lee, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, and colleagues then developed thresholds to derive a score that recommended admission in 95% of patients who went on to need oxygen and an even greater proportion of those who later died.

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

CORONET

The resulting COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) model “performs very well at predicting admission and severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer,” Dr. Lee said. “We have set pragmatic and clinically relevant thresholds that focus on the safety regarding an admission versus discharge decision.”

To help health care professionals, the researchers have built a free online support tool that allows them to enter data and receive a recommendation “as to whether their patient should be considered for discharge, considered for admission, or is at high risk of having a severe outcome of coronavirus,” Dr. Lee explained.

“The health care professional can then explore the recommendation by seeing how their patient … compares with the rest of the cohort.”

The tool also includes a “diagram showing which features are most important to recommend a discharge decision versus an admission decision for each individual patient.”
 

Clinically intuitive

Dr. Alexi Wright, associate professor, Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that there were many things that were “really nice about the study.”

“First and foremost that they were establishing a tool to efficiently triage [patients] presenting with COVID,” she said, adding that it was “clinically intuitive” that the team made “pragmatic choices,” and the use of a random forest algorithm means the results are “very interpretable.”

However, Dr. Wright wondered whether the results can be replicated.

Alongside a lack of information on the deaths in the cohort, she pointed out that “ideally you have three data sets, with a training set, a testing set, and a validation set.”

The CORONET model was, however, trained and evaluated on the same dataset, “so it really needs external validation before it would be ready for direct clinical application.”

She continued that there is a “critical need to establish that studies can both be reproduced and replicated,” noting that a recent review showed that 85% of machine-learning studies that were used to detect COVID-19 using chest radiographs “failed fundamental reproducibility and quality checks.” 

Risk factors

Dr. Lee began her presentation by reminding the audience that cancer patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death, with older age, male sex, nosocomial infection, higher ECOG performance status, and active cancer among the risk factors for mortality.

“However, outcomes are very heterogeneous, ranging from patients without symptoms at all to cases with multi-organ failure and death,” she said.

It is consequently “very important for the treating clinician to determine which patients could be safely discharged to the community versus those who need additional support in being admitted to hospital.”

To develop a tool that could distinguish between those two groups of patients, the researchers collected data on 1,743 cancer patients, which was reduced down to 920 patients after excluding those without laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and those with missing data.

Using recursive feature elimination, they selected 10 key patient features associated with prognosis, then compared a lasso regression model with a random forest model, with the latter performing the best.

The team then divided their patients into four cohorts, with the model trained on three cohorts and tested on the fourth. This resulted in the CORONET score, with the final model determined by testing it against the entire patient population.

Next, thresholds were determined for assessing patients for admission versus discharge, as well as for severity of illness, giving the final CORONET model, from which the online tool was developed.
 

Checking performance

The results showed that the model was able to predict admission with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.82 for admission, 0.85 for oxygen requirement, and 0.79 for death.

Further analysis revealed that the most important feature at the time of presentation for determining outcome was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), “which is a composite score of heart rate, respiratory rate, saturations and confusion level,” Dr. Lee said.

In addition, C-reactive protein levels, albumin, age, and platelet counts “were also very important features,” she continued, “and these have also been shown in a number of different studies to be important at determining the outcome from coronavirus.”

To examine the performance of the CORONET score further, they applied it to a European hospital dataset, ESMO-CoCARE registry data, and a U.S. cohort, the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry (CCC19). They found that the score discriminated between patients, but it did so with some degree of heterogeneity.

This was largely driven by higher patient age among the U.S. patients, a higher NEWS2 score, and lower albumin levels, Dr. Lee said.

To ensure the score’s applicability to clinical practice, the team set pragmatic thresholds to determine whether or not a patient required admission or whether they were at risk of dying.

For admission, they set a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 56%, while for mortality they set a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 92%.

When this was converted into a decision support tool, the model recommended hospital admission for 95% of patients who eventually required oxygen and 97% of patients who died.

The study was funded by The Christie Charitable Foundation. Dr. Lee declares relationships with AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst). Dr. Wright declares relationships with NCCN/AstraZeneca (Inst).

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

An online support tool for health care professionals that recommends whether to admit or discharge a cancer patient with COVID-19, based on their risk of a severe complication, has been developed by researchers from Manchester.

The team used machine learning on data from more than 900 cancer patients with COVID-19, conducting multiple analyses to arrive at a set of features that could accurately predict the need for admission or oxygen therapy, as well as the risk of death.

Dr. Rebecca Lee, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, and colleagues then developed thresholds to derive a score that recommended admission in 95% of patients who went on to need oxygen and an even greater proportion of those who later died.

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

CORONET

The resulting COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) model “performs very well at predicting admission and severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer,” Dr. Lee said. “We have set pragmatic and clinically relevant thresholds that focus on the safety regarding an admission versus discharge decision.”

To help health care professionals, the researchers have built a free online support tool that allows them to enter data and receive a recommendation “as to whether their patient should be considered for discharge, considered for admission, or is at high risk of having a severe outcome of coronavirus,” Dr. Lee explained.

“The health care professional can then explore the recommendation by seeing how their patient … compares with the rest of the cohort.”

The tool also includes a “diagram showing which features are most important to recommend a discharge decision versus an admission decision for each individual patient.”
 

Clinically intuitive

Dr. Alexi Wright, associate professor, Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that there were many things that were “really nice about the study.”

“First and foremost that they were establishing a tool to efficiently triage [patients] presenting with COVID,” she said, adding that it was “clinically intuitive” that the team made “pragmatic choices,” and the use of a random forest algorithm means the results are “very interpretable.”

However, Dr. Wright wondered whether the results can be replicated.

Alongside a lack of information on the deaths in the cohort, she pointed out that “ideally you have three data sets, with a training set, a testing set, and a validation set.”

The CORONET model was, however, trained and evaluated on the same dataset, “so it really needs external validation before it would be ready for direct clinical application.”

She continued that there is a “critical need to establish that studies can both be reproduced and replicated,” noting that a recent review showed that 85% of machine-learning studies that were used to detect COVID-19 using chest radiographs “failed fundamental reproducibility and quality checks.” 

Risk factors

Dr. Lee began her presentation by reminding the audience that cancer patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death, with older age, male sex, nosocomial infection, higher ECOG performance status, and active cancer among the risk factors for mortality.

“However, outcomes are very heterogeneous, ranging from patients without symptoms at all to cases with multi-organ failure and death,” she said.

It is consequently “very important for the treating clinician to determine which patients could be safely discharged to the community versus those who need additional support in being admitted to hospital.”

To develop a tool that could distinguish between those two groups of patients, the researchers collected data on 1,743 cancer patients, which was reduced down to 920 patients after excluding those without laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and those with missing data.

Using recursive feature elimination, they selected 10 key patient features associated with prognosis, then compared a lasso regression model with a random forest model, with the latter performing the best.

The team then divided their patients into four cohorts, with the model trained on three cohorts and tested on the fourth. This resulted in the CORONET score, with the final model determined by testing it against the entire patient population.

Next, thresholds were determined for assessing patients for admission versus discharge, as well as for severity of illness, giving the final CORONET model, from which the online tool was developed.
 

Checking performance

The results showed that the model was able to predict admission with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.82 for admission, 0.85 for oxygen requirement, and 0.79 for death.

Further analysis revealed that the most important feature at the time of presentation for determining outcome was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), “which is a composite score of heart rate, respiratory rate, saturations and confusion level,” Dr. Lee said.

In addition, C-reactive protein levels, albumin, age, and platelet counts “were also very important features,” she continued, “and these have also been shown in a number of different studies to be important at determining the outcome from coronavirus.”

To examine the performance of the CORONET score further, they applied it to a European hospital dataset, ESMO-CoCARE registry data, and a U.S. cohort, the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry (CCC19). They found that the score discriminated between patients, but it did so with some degree of heterogeneity.

This was largely driven by higher patient age among the U.S. patients, a higher NEWS2 score, and lower albumin levels, Dr. Lee said.

To ensure the score’s applicability to clinical practice, the team set pragmatic thresholds to determine whether or not a patient required admission or whether they were at risk of dying.

For admission, they set a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 56%, while for mortality they set a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 92%.

When this was converted into a decision support tool, the model recommended hospital admission for 95% of patients who eventually required oxygen and 97% of patients who died.

The study was funded by The Christie Charitable Foundation. Dr. Lee declares relationships with AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst). Dr. Wright declares relationships with NCCN/AstraZeneca (Inst).

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

An online support tool for health care professionals that recommends whether to admit or discharge a cancer patient with COVID-19, based on their risk of a severe complication, has been developed by researchers from Manchester.

The team used machine learning on data from more than 900 cancer patients with COVID-19, conducting multiple analyses to arrive at a set of features that could accurately predict the need for admission or oxygen therapy, as well as the risk of death.

Dr. Rebecca Lee, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, and colleagues then developed thresholds to derive a score that recommended admission in 95% of patients who went on to need oxygen and an even greater proportion of those who later died.

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

CORONET

The resulting COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) model “performs very well at predicting admission and severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer,” Dr. Lee said. “We have set pragmatic and clinically relevant thresholds that focus on the safety regarding an admission versus discharge decision.”

To help health care professionals, the researchers have built a free online support tool that allows them to enter data and receive a recommendation “as to whether their patient should be considered for discharge, considered for admission, or is at high risk of having a severe outcome of coronavirus,” Dr. Lee explained.

“The health care professional can then explore the recommendation by seeing how their patient … compares with the rest of the cohort.”

The tool also includes a “diagram showing which features are most important to recommend a discharge decision versus an admission decision for each individual patient.”
 

Clinically intuitive

Dr. Alexi Wright, associate professor, Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that there were many things that were “really nice about the study.”

“First and foremost that they were establishing a tool to efficiently triage [patients] presenting with COVID,” she said, adding that it was “clinically intuitive” that the team made “pragmatic choices,” and the use of a random forest algorithm means the results are “very interpretable.”

However, Dr. Wright wondered whether the results can be replicated.

Alongside a lack of information on the deaths in the cohort, she pointed out that “ideally you have three data sets, with a training set, a testing set, and a validation set.”

The CORONET model was, however, trained and evaluated on the same dataset, “so it really needs external validation before it would be ready for direct clinical application.”

She continued that there is a “critical need to establish that studies can both be reproduced and replicated,” noting that a recent review showed that 85% of machine-learning studies that were used to detect COVID-19 using chest radiographs “failed fundamental reproducibility and quality checks.” 

Risk factors

Dr. Lee began her presentation by reminding the audience that cancer patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death, with older age, male sex, nosocomial infection, higher ECOG performance status, and active cancer among the risk factors for mortality.

“However, outcomes are very heterogeneous, ranging from patients without symptoms at all to cases with multi-organ failure and death,” she said.

It is consequently “very important for the treating clinician to determine which patients could be safely discharged to the community versus those who need additional support in being admitted to hospital.”

To develop a tool that could distinguish between those two groups of patients, the researchers collected data on 1,743 cancer patients, which was reduced down to 920 patients after excluding those without laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and those with missing data.

Using recursive feature elimination, they selected 10 key patient features associated with prognosis, then compared a lasso regression model with a random forest model, with the latter performing the best.

The team then divided their patients into four cohorts, with the model trained on three cohorts and tested on the fourth. This resulted in the CORONET score, with the final model determined by testing it against the entire patient population.

Next, thresholds were determined for assessing patients for admission versus discharge, as well as for severity of illness, giving the final CORONET model, from which the online tool was developed.
 

Checking performance

The results showed that the model was able to predict admission with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.82 for admission, 0.85 for oxygen requirement, and 0.79 for death.

Further analysis revealed that the most important feature at the time of presentation for determining outcome was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), “which is a composite score of heart rate, respiratory rate, saturations and confusion level,” Dr. Lee said.

In addition, C-reactive protein levels, albumin, age, and platelet counts “were also very important features,” she continued, “and these have also been shown in a number of different studies to be important at determining the outcome from coronavirus.”

To examine the performance of the CORONET score further, they applied it to a European hospital dataset, ESMO-CoCARE registry data, and a U.S. cohort, the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry (CCC19). They found that the score discriminated between patients, but it did so with some degree of heterogeneity.

This was largely driven by higher patient age among the U.S. patients, a higher NEWS2 score, and lower albumin levels, Dr. Lee said.

To ensure the score’s applicability to clinical practice, the team set pragmatic thresholds to determine whether or not a patient required admission or whether they were at risk of dying.

For admission, they set a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 56%, while for mortality they set a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 92%.

When this was converted into a decision support tool, the model recommended hospital admission for 95% of patients who eventually required oxygen and 97% of patients who died.

The study was funded by The Christie Charitable Foundation. Dr. Lee declares relationships with AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst). Dr. Wright declares relationships with NCCN/AstraZeneca (Inst).

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

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Physicians often face the choice of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone + rituximab), according to Edward J. Bataillard of the Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, and colleagues.

To address this issue, the researchers conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. They found that greater than 80 years of age is an important cutoff for treating patients with a reduced R-CHOP dosage, according to their results, published in Blood Advances (2021;5[9]:2426-37).

Cutoff at 80 years of age

Their final review comprised 13 studies including 5,188 patients. Overall, the lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in seven of nine studies reporting crude survival analyses. In addition, most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced R-CHOP DI.

However, in subgroups of patients aged 80 years or more, survival was not consistently affected by the use of lower dosage R-CHOP, according to the researchers.

“We found evidence of improved survival with higher RDIs (up to R-CHOP-21) in those aged < 80 years, but the literature to date does not support full-dose intensity in those 80 years [or older],” they stated.

However, the researchers concluded that: “In the absence of improved options beyond R-CHOP in DLBCL over the past 20 years, prospective studies of DI are warranted, despite the recognized challenges involved.”

Two of the authors reported being previously employed by Roche. A third served as a consultant and adviser and received honoraria from Roche and other pharmaceutical companies. Several authors reported disclosures related to multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

mlesney@mdedge.com

A novel 16-gene panel based on the biology of locoregional recurrence in early invasive breast cancer can both identify patients with a low risk of recurrence if they were to skip postsurgery radiation therapy, and predict which patients would be unlikely to benefit from adjuvant radiation, investigators reported.

Among 354 patients with stage I or II invasive estrogen receptor–positive (ER+), HER2-negative breast cancers who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy, the genomic signature, dubbed POLAR (Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation) was prognostic for locoregional recurrence in patients who did not undergo radiation therapy, reported Martin Sjöström, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

They reported their findings in a poster presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting (Abstract 512).

“This is to our knowledge the first radiation-omission signature that is both prognostic and predictive: prognostic for outcomes in the absence of radiation, and predictive of benefits,” coauthor Corey Speers MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of data on patients enrolled in the SweBCG 91 RT trial, in which 1,187 patients with T1-2N0M0 breast cancer underwent a standardized radical sector resection and were then randomly assigned to either postoperative radiotherapy or no further treatment.

As the investigators reported in a long-term follow-up study presented in 2010 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, the addition of postoperative radiation did not significantly affect overall survival, but was associated with a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival.

In the study presented at ASCO 2021, Dr. Sjöström and colleagues in Sweden, the United States, and Canada sought to determine whether they could identify a genomic signature that would identify women at very low risk for recurrence who could safely be spared from radiotherapy.

They focused on those patients in the study with ER+, HER2-negative tumors who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy. The patients were divided into a training cohort of 243, and a validation cohort of 354 patients.

The investigators performed transcriptome-wide profiling of tumors, and identified both biological gene sets and individuals genes associated with locoregional recurrence among patients in the training set who did not receive radiotherapy.

The final POLAR genomic signature, containing 16 genes, was locked prior to testing in the validation cohort.

In a multivariable Cox model adjusting for age, grade, tumor size and luminal A vs. luminal B subtype, the POLAR gene set was prognostic for locoregional recurrence, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (P < .001).

The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate for patients in the POLAR low-risk category who had not received radiation was 7%, and there was no significant benefit for POLAR low-risk patients who did receive radiation (HR 1.1, P = ns).

In contrast, patients classified as POLAR high risk who received radiotherapy had significantly lower risk for locoregional recurrence than high-risk patients who did not receive radiotherapy (HR 0.43, P = .0053).

Dr. Speers said that the POLAR signature appears to be unique in its ability to discriminate radiation-omission risk.

“At least looking in this cohort in the Swedish trial, none of other previously derived signatures – Mammaprint, ProSigna, Oncotype – were prognostic or predictive of locoregional recurrence events with radiation,” he said.

The investigators are currently exploring the POLAR signature in other clinical trials in which patients were randomized to receive radiation or no radiation.
 

­‘A true victory’

Invited discussant Benjamin D. Smith, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, pointed out that in randomized clinical trials, approximately 60% of patients treated for early breast cancer did not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation, and that radiation prevented recurrence in about 30%, while about 10% experienced recurrence despite receiving radiation.

He said that the study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues asks the question “can we use molecular factors to help identify patients who will not recur with lumpectomy alone without radiation therapy?”

The 60% of patients who will not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation can be categorized into two subpopulations: those with no residual malignant clonogens – the population included in this study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues – and those with residual clonogens in the breast or elsewhere in the body that are sensitive to adjuvant endocrine therapy.

He said that the 7% 10-year risk of recurrence among patients in the POLAR low-risk group, who had neither radiation nor endocrine therapy, “is an exceptional outcome, which should be applauded, and I would point out that this risk of local recurrence of only 7% is at least in the same ballpark as the risk of recurrence that we accept every day when we treat early stage breast cancer patients with mastectomy alone, so this is a true victory.

“When we reflect on these provocative results from Dr. Sjöström and colleagues, it prompts in mind the question, could there be a group of patients with early breast cancer for whom a true ‘one-and-done’ strategy could be effective and safe?” Dr. Smith said.

Getting there will require a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach, involving imaging features of the primary tumor, clinical and pathologic features, and molecular information such as that provided by the POLAR genomic signature, he said.

The study was supported by PFS Genomics. Dr. Sjöström reported institutional funding from PFS Genomics. Dr. Speers disclosed stock and other ownership interests in the company, and he has applied for a patent on methods and genomic classifiers for prognosis of breast cancer and predicting benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy. Dr. Smith reported an equity interest in Oncora Medical, and an uncompensated relationship with the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

A novel 16-gene panel based on the biology of locoregional recurrence in early invasive breast cancer can both identify patients with a low risk of recurrence if they were to skip postsurgery radiation therapy, and predict which patients would be unlikely to benefit from adjuvant radiation, investigators reported.

Among 354 patients with stage I or II invasive estrogen receptor–positive (ER+), HER2-negative breast cancers who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy, the genomic signature, dubbed POLAR (Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation) was prognostic for locoregional recurrence in patients who did not undergo radiation therapy, reported Martin Sjöström, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

They reported their findings in a poster presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting (Abstract 512).

“This is to our knowledge the first radiation-omission signature that is both prognostic and predictive: prognostic for outcomes in the absence of radiation, and predictive of benefits,” coauthor Corey Speers MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of data on patients enrolled in the SweBCG 91 RT trial, in which 1,187 patients with T1-2N0M0 breast cancer underwent a standardized radical sector resection and were then randomly assigned to either postoperative radiotherapy or no further treatment.

As the investigators reported in a long-term follow-up study presented in 2010 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, the addition of postoperative radiation did not significantly affect overall survival, but was associated with a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival.

In the study presented at ASCO 2021, Dr. Sjöström and colleagues in Sweden, the United States, and Canada sought to determine whether they could identify a genomic signature that would identify women at very low risk for recurrence who could safely be spared from radiotherapy.

They focused on those patients in the study with ER+, HER2-negative tumors who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy. The patients were divided into a training cohort of 243, and a validation cohort of 354 patients.

The investigators performed transcriptome-wide profiling of tumors, and identified both biological gene sets and individuals genes associated with locoregional recurrence among patients in the training set who did not receive radiotherapy.

The final POLAR genomic signature, containing 16 genes, was locked prior to testing in the validation cohort.

In a multivariable Cox model adjusting for age, grade, tumor size and luminal A vs. luminal B subtype, the POLAR gene set was prognostic for locoregional recurrence, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (P < .001).

The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate for patients in the POLAR low-risk category who had not received radiation was 7%, and there was no significant benefit for POLAR low-risk patients who did receive radiation (HR 1.1, P = ns).

In contrast, patients classified as POLAR high risk who received radiotherapy had significantly lower risk for locoregional recurrence than high-risk patients who did not receive radiotherapy (HR 0.43, P = .0053).

Dr. Speers said that the POLAR signature appears to be unique in its ability to discriminate radiation-omission risk.

“At least looking in this cohort in the Swedish trial, none of other previously derived signatures – Mammaprint, ProSigna, Oncotype – were prognostic or predictive of locoregional recurrence events with radiation,” he said.

The investigators are currently exploring the POLAR signature in other clinical trials in which patients were randomized to receive radiation or no radiation.
 

­‘A true victory’

Invited discussant Benjamin D. Smith, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, pointed out that in randomized clinical trials, approximately 60% of patients treated for early breast cancer did not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation, and that radiation prevented recurrence in about 30%, while about 10% experienced recurrence despite receiving radiation.

He said that the study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues asks the question “can we use molecular factors to help identify patients who will not recur with lumpectomy alone without radiation therapy?”

The 60% of patients who will not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation can be categorized into two subpopulations: those with no residual malignant clonogens – the population included in this study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues – and those with residual clonogens in the breast or elsewhere in the body that are sensitive to adjuvant endocrine therapy.

He said that the 7% 10-year risk of recurrence among patients in the POLAR low-risk group, who had neither radiation nor endocrine therapy, “is an exceptional outcome, which should be applauded, and I would point out that this risk of local recurrence of only 7% is at least in the same ballpark as the risk of recurrence that we accept every day when we treat early stage breast cancer patients with mastectomy alone, so this is a true victory.

“When we reflect on these provocative results from Dr. Sjöström and colleagues, it prompts in mind the question, could there be a group of patients with early breast cancer for whom a true ‘one-and-done’ strategy could be effective and safe?” Dr. Smith said.

Getting there will require a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach, involving imaging features of the primary tumor, clinical and pathologic features, and molecular information such as that provided by the POLAR genomic signature, he said.

The study was supported by PFS Genomics. Dr. Sjöström reported institutional funding from PFS Genomics. Dr. Speers disclosed stock and other ownership interests in the company, and he has applied for a patent on methods and genomic classifiers for prognosis of breast cancer and predicting benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy. Dr. Smith reported an equity interest in Oncora Medical, and an uncompensated relationship with the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

A novel 16-gene panel based on the biology of locoregional recurrence in early invasive breast cancer can both identify patients with a low risk of recurrence if they were to skip postsurgery radiation therapy, and predict which patients would be unlikely to benefit from adjuvant radiation, investigators reported.

Among 354 patients with stage I or II invasive estrogen receptor–positive (ER+), HER2-negative breast cancers who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy, the genomic signature, dubbed POLAR (Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation) was prognostic for locoregional recurrence in patients who did not undergo radiation therapy, reported Martin Sjöström, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

They reported their findings in a poster presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting (Abstract 512).

“This is to our knowledge the first radiation-omission signature that is both prognostic and predictive: prognostic for outcomes in the absence of radiation, and predictive of benefits,” coauthor Corey Speers MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of data on patients enrolled in the SweBCG 91 RT trial, in which 1,187 patients with T1-2N0M0 breast cancer underwent a standardized radical sector resection and were then randomly assigned to either postoperative radiotherapy or no further treatment.

As the investigators reported in a long-term follow-up study presented in 2010 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, the addition of postoperative radiation did not significantly affect overall survival, but was associated with a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival.

In the study presented at ASCO 2021, Dr. Sjöström and colleagues in Sweden, the United States, and Canada sought to determine whether they could identify a genomic signature that would identify women at very low risk for recurrence who could safely be spared from radiotherapy.

They focused on those patients in the study with ER+, HER2-negative tumors who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy. The patients were divided into a training cohort of 243, and a validation cohort of 354 patients.

The investigators performed transcriptome-wide profiling of tumors, and identified both biological gene sets and individuals genes associated with locoregional recurrence among patients in the training set who did not receive radiotherapy.

The final POLAR genomic signature, containing 16 genes, was locked prior to testing in the validation cohort.

In a multivariable Cox model adjusting for age, grade, tumor size and luminal A vs. luminal B subtype, the POLAR gene set was prognostic for locoregional recurrence, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (P < .001).

The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate for patients in the POLAR low-risk category who had not received radiation was 7%, and there was no significant benefit for POLAR low-risk patients who did receive radiation (HR 1.1, P = ns).

In contrast, patients classified as POLAR high risk who received radiotherapy had significantly lower risk for locoregional recurrence than high-risk patients who did not receive radiotherapy (HR 0.43, P = .0053).

Dr. Speers said that the POLAR signature appears to be unique in its ability to discriminate radiation-omission risk.

“At least looking in this cohort in the Swedish trial, none of other previously derived signatures – Mammaprint, ProSigna, Oncotype – were prognostic or predictive of locoregional recurrence events with radiation,” he said.

The investigators are currently exploring the POLAR signature in other clinical trials in which patients were randomized to receive radiation or no radiation.
 

­‘A true victory’

Invited discussant Benjamin D. Smith, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, pointed out that in randomized clinical trials, approximately 60% of patients treated for early breast cancer did not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation, and that radiation prevented recurrence in about 30%, while about 10% experienced recurrence despite receiving radiation.

He said that the study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues asks the question “can we use molecular factors to help identify patients who will not recur with lumpectomy alone without radiation therapy?”

The 60% of patients who will not experience recurrence in the absence of radiation can be categorized into two subpopulations: those with no residual malignant clonogens – the population included in this study by Dr. Sjöström and colleagues – and those with residual clonogens in the breast or elsewhere in the body that are sensitive to adjuvant endocrine therapy.

He said that the 7% 10-year risk of recurrence among patients in the POLAR low-risk group, who had neither radiation nor endocrine therapy, “is an exceptional outcome, which should be applauded, and I would point out that this risk of local recurrence of only 7% is at least in the same ballpark as the risk of recurrence that we accept every day when we treat early stage breast cancer patients with mastectomy alone, so this is a true victory.

“When we reflect on these provocative results from Dr. Sjöström and colleagues, it prompts in mind the question, could there be a group of patients with early breast cancer for whom a true ‘one-and-done’ strategy could be effective and safe?” Dr. Smith said.

Getting there will require a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach, involving imaging features of the primary tumor, clinical and pathologic features, and molecular information such as that provided by the POLAR genomic signature, he said.

The study was supported by PFS Genomics. Dr. Sjöström reported institutional funding from PFS Genomics. Dr. Speers disclosed stock and other ownership interests in the company, and he has applied for a patent on methods and genomic classifiers for prognosis of breast cancer and predicting benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy. Dr. Smith reported an equity interest in Oncora Medical, and an uncompensated relationship with the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

Chemotherapy and local excision led to organ preservation in over half of early-stage rectal cancer patients in a small study, but follow-up was only a median of 15.4 months.

Even so, “we believe that subsequent trials ... are warranted,” said lead investigator Hagen F. Kennecke, MD, medical director of GI oncology at Providence Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.

“The results are quite promising,” said study discussant Karyn Stitzenberg, MD, a surgical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

“The reported organ preservation rates of 57% to 79% compare favorably with the rates previously demonstrated in studies of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by local excision,” but longer-term follow up is needed “to know the true organ preservation rate,” she said.

Organ preservation – sparing the rectum during treatment – is a hot topic in rectal cancer. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is still the go-to option, but it’s fraught with bad GI, urinary, sexual, and other complications for patients. “Consequently, the concept of organ preservation ... is very appealing,” Dr. Stitzenberg explained.

The chemoradiation/local excision approach she referenced is gaining traction as an alternative, but the radiation component is itself associated with substantial short- and long-term problems, including sphincter dysfunction and wound healing complications.

The goal of Dr. Kennecke’s study, dubbed NEO [Neoadjuvant, Excision, Observation], was to see if the radiation could be left out altogether.

Recruited at eight centers in Canada and one in the United States, the 58 subjects had clinical stage T1-T3 A/B node-negative tumors with no pathologic high-risk features.

They received neoadjuvant FOLFOX (six cycles in 32 patients, 91% completion rate) or CAPOX (four cycles in 26 patients, 89% completion); 56 of the 58 subjects then went on to transanal endoscopic tumor excision; one of the other two patients wasn’t eligible because of tumor progression and the other one declined.

The 33 patients who were stage T0/T1N0 after treatment were spared organ removal and underwent observation every 3-6 months. TME was recommended for the 23 others who were stage 2 or higher or had nodal metastases following chemotherapy and excision.

The numbers translated to a per-protocol organ preservation rate of 57% over a median follow-up of 15.4 months; when the 13 patients who declined TME were added, the rate climbed to 79%.

Although “organ preservation in rectal cancer is becoming an increasingly promising and realistic option for a subset of patients,” Dr. Stitzenberg said, there are more reasons to be cautious beyond the short follow-up.

“The standard of care treatment for these patients would have been proctectomy ... Most would not have [had] systemic chemotherapy. As a result, the added morbidity of FOLFOX or CAPOX needs to be considered.” The study reported that there were no unexpected toxicities, but “what were the expected toxicities? How many patients experienced grade 3 to 5 complications?” she wondered.

Also, how realistic is it to expect patients to report for surveillance every few months outside of a trial? And how can they best be watched to make sure recurrence is caught “while salvage TME is still feasible? There are many longer-term follow-up questions that remain to be answered,” Dr. Stitzenberg said.

Even with short follow-up, there were two locoregional recurrences across the cohort (3.5%), both treated by TME to R0/1 resection. There were no distant relapses.

Subjects were a median of 67 years old, and over two-thirds were men. The majority had stage 2 disease at baseline. Tumors were well to moderately differentiated nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinomas with a median height of 6 cm.

The work was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Kennecke disclosed relationships with Advanced Accelerator Applications, Ipsen, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. Stitzenberg had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

Chemotherapy and local excision led to organ preservation in over half of early-stage rectal cancer patients in a small study, but follow-up was only a median of 15.4 months.

Even so, “we believe that subsequent trials ... are warranted,” said lead investigator Hagen F. Kennecke, MD, medical director of GI oncology at Providence Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.

“The results are quite promising,” said study discussant Karyn Stitzenberg, MD, a surgical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

“The reported organ preservation rates of 57% to 79% compare favorably with the rates previously demonstrated in studies of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by local excision,” but longer-term follow up is needed “to know the true organ preservation rate,” she said.

Organ preservation – sparing the rectum during treatment – is a hot topic in rectal cancer. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is still the go-to option, but it’s fraught with bad GI, urinary, sexual, and other complications for patients. “Consequently, the concept of organ preservation ... is very appealing,” Dr. Stitzenberg explained.

The chemoradiation/local excision approach she referenced is gaining traction as an alternative, but the radiation component is itself associated with substantial short- and long-term problems, including sphincter dysfunction and wound healing complications.

The goal of Dr. Kennecke’s study, dubbed NEO [Neoadjuvant, Excision, Observation], was to see if the radiation could be left out altogether.

Recruited at eight centers in Canada and one in the United States, the 58 subjects had clinical stage T1-T3 A/B node-negative tumors with no pathologic high-risk features.

They received neoadjuvant FOLFOX (six cycles in 32 patients, 91% completion rate) or CAPOX (four cycles in 26 patients, 89% completion); 56 of the 58 subjects then went on to transanal endoscopic tumor excision; one of the other two patients wasn’t eligible because of tumor progression and the other one declined.

The 33 patients who were stage T0/T1N0 after treatment were spared organ removal and underwent observation every 3-6 months. TME was recommended for the 23 others who were stage 2 or higher or had nodal metastases following chemotherapy and excision.

The numbers translated to a per-protocol organ preservation rate of 57% over a median follow-up of 15.4 months; when the 13 patients who declined TME were added, the rate climbed to 79%.

Although “organ preservation in rectal cancer is becoming an increasingly promising and realistic option for a subset of patients,” Dr. Stitzenberg said, there are more reasons to be cautious beyond the short follow-up.

“The standard of care treatment for these patients would have been proctectomy ... Most would not have [had] systemic chemotherapy. As a result, the added morbidity of FOLFOX or CAPOX needs to be considered.” The study reported that there were no unexpected toxicities, but “what were the expected toxicities? How many patients experienced grade 3 to 5 complications?” she wondered.

Also, how realistic is it to expect patients to report for surveillance every few months outside of a trial? And how can they best be watched to make sure recurrence is caught “while salvage TME is still feasible? There are many longer-term follow-up questions that remain to be answered,” Dr. Stitzenberg said.

Even with short follow-up, there were two locoregional recurrences across the cohort (3.5%), both treated by TME to R0/1 resection. There were no distant relapses.

Subjects were a median of 67 years old, and over two-thirds were men. The majority had stage 2 disease at baseline. Tumors were well to moderately differentiated nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinomas with a median height of 6 cm.

The work was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Kennecke disclosed relationships with Advanced Accelerator Applications, Ipsen, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. Stitzenberg had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

Chemotherapy and local excision led to organ preservation in over half of early-stage rectal cancer patients in a small study, but follow-up was only a median of 15.4 months.

Even so, “we believe that subsequent trials ... are warranted,” said lead investigator Hagen F. Kennecke, MD, medical director of GI oncology at Providence Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.

“The results are quite promising,” said study discussant Karyn Stitzenberg, MD, a surgical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

“The reported organ preservation rates of 57% to 79% compare favorably with the rates previously demonstrated in studies of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by local excision,” but longer-term follow up is needed “to know the true organ preservation rate,” she said.

Organ preservation – sparing the rectum during treatment – is a hot topic in rectal cancer. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is still the go-to option, but it’s fraught with bad GI, urinary, sexual, and other complications for patients. “Consequently, the concept of organ preservation ... is very appealing,” Dr. Stitzenberg explained.

The chemoradiation/local excision approach she referenced is gaining traction as an alternative, but the radiation component is itself associated with substantial short- and long-term problems, including sphincter dysfunction and wound healing complications.

The goal of Dr. Kennecke’s study, dubbed NEO [Neoadjuvant, Excision, Observation], was to see if the radiation could be left out altogether.

Recruited at eight centers in Canada and one in the United States, the 58 subjects had clinical stage T1-T3 A/B node-negative tumors with no pathologic high-risk features.

They received neoadjuvant FOLFOX (six cycles in 32 patients, 91% completion rate) or CAPOX (four cycles in 26 patients, 89% completion); 56 of the 58 subjects then went on to transanal endoscopic tumor excision; one of the other two patients wasn’t eligible because of tumor progression and the other one declined.

The 33 patients who were stage T0/T1N0 after treatment were spared organ removal and underwent observation every 3-6 months. TME was recommended for the 23 others who were stage 2 or higher or had nodal metastases following chemotherapy and excision.

The numbers translated to a per-protocol organ preservation rate of 57% over a median follow-up of 15.4 months; when the 13 patients who declined TME were added, the rate climbed to 79%.

Although “organ preservation in rectal cancer is becoming an increasingly promising and realistic option for a subset of patients,” Dr. Stitzenberg said, there are more reasons to be cautious beyond the short follow-up.

“The standard of care treatment for these patients would have been proctectomy ... Most would not have [had] systemic chemotherapy. As a result, the added morbidity of FOLFOX or CAPOX needs to be considered.” The study reported that there were no unexpected toxicities, but “what were the expected toxicities? How many patients experienced grade 3 to 5 complications?” she wondered.

Also, how realistic is it to expect patients to report for surveillance every few months outside of a trial? And how can they best be watched to make sure recurrence is caught “while salvage TME is still feasible? There are many longer-term follow-up questions that remain to be answered,” Dr. Stitzenberg said.

Even with short follow-up, there were two locoregional recurrences across the cohort (3.5%), both treated by TME to R0/1 resection. There were no distant relapses.

Subjects were a median of 67 years old, and over two-thirds were men. The majority had stage 2 disease at baseline. Tumors were well to moderately differentiated nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinomas with a median height of 6 cm.

The work was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Kennecke disclosed relationships with Advanced Accelerator Applications, Ipsen, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. Stitzenberg had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com