AVAHO

One year of melatonin, given at 20 mg nightly, after complete resection of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS) in a phase 3 trial.

There was a hint of benefit with melatonin among patients with stage III/IV NSCLC. These patients had a hazard reduction of 25% in 5-year DFS. However, the median DFS for patients with advanced disease was the same whether they received melatonin or placebo – 18 months.

In the overall study population, melatonin had no beneficial effects on quality of life, sleep, anxiety, depression, pain, or fatigue, and it did not reduce adverse events from chemotherapy or radiation.

These results were reported in EClinicalMedicine.

“In light of the results, we do not recommend the inclusion of adjuvant melatonin for patients with early-stage NSCLC. Evidence suggests there may be a benefit for those with late-stage disease,” the authors wrote. “However, because of the mixed findings observed, we recommend a follow-up randomized, controlled trial involving a larger population focusing on later-stage resected lung cancer to clarify these results.”

“I would very much like to pursue another controlled study of melatonin specifically in a group of late-stage lung cancer and possibly in other more advanced cancer types,” said lead author Dugald Seely, ND, of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in Toronto.
 

Study rationale and design

Melatonin has shown promise for treating patients with lung cancer, Dr. Seely and colleagues noted. Melatonin is often recommended by naturopathic doctors following lung cancer surgery, but until now there was no high-level evidence regarding the practice.

For their study, Dr. Seely and colleagues evaluated 709 patients who had undergone NSCLC resection. The patients were randomized to receive placebo (n = 353) or melatonin (n = 356) 1 hour before bedtime for 1 year. A 20-mg melatonin dose was used, which is common in clinical practice and research.

The study arms were well matched, with no “clinically meaningful” differences in demographics, surgery type, cancer type, stage of cancer, or preoperative comorbidities, according to the researchers.

The mean age in both treatment arms was 67 years. Overall, 134 participants received adjuvant chemotherapy (66 melatonin, 68 placebo), and 43 had adjuvant radiation (22 melatonin, 21 placebo).
 

Results

For 2-year DFS, melatonin showed an adjusted relative risk of 1.01 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.22; P = .94) versus placebo. The adjusted relative risk in the per-protocol analysis was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.96-1.32; P = .14.)

At 5 years, the median DFS was not reached in either treatment arm. Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.86-1.09; P = .84) for 5-year DFS.

Among patients with stage I-II NSCLC, the median DFS was not reached at 5 years in either treatment arm. Among patients with stage III-IV NSCLC, the median DFS was 18 months in both arms.

Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.85-1.11; P = .66) in patients with early-stage NSCLC and a hazard reduction of 25% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .005) in patients with late-stage NSCLC.

For the entire cohort, there were no significant differences between treatment arms in the number, severity, or seriousness of adverse events. Likewise, there were no significant differences between the treatment arms with regard to fatigue, quality of life, or sleep at 1 or 2 years.

Dr. Seely said the most surprising thing about this study was that melatonin didn’t help with sleep.

“Since initiation of the trial, my thinking on the right dose of melatonin to support sleep has changed. Clinically, I see extended-release and, indeed, lower doses to be more effective than 20 mg nightly,” he noted.

Dr. Seely and colleagues also assessed proposed mechanisms for melatonin’s possible benefit in NSCLC but found no effect on natural killer cell cytotoxicity or phenotype and no effect on blood levels of inflammatory cytokines in a substudy of 92 patients.

This research was funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation and the Gateway for Cancer Research Foundation. The researchers had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

One year of melatonin, given at 20 mg nightly, after complete resection of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS) in a phase 3 trial.

There was a hint of benefit with melatonin among patients with stage III/IV NSCLC. These patients had a hazard reduction of 25% in 5-year DFS. However, the median DFS for patients with advanced disease was the same whether they received melatonin or placebo – 18 months.

In the overall study population, melatonin had no beneficial effects on quality of life, sleep, anxiety, depression, pain, or fatigue, and it did not reduce adverse events from chemotherapy or radiation.

These results were reported in EClinicalMedicine.

“In light of the results, we do not recommend the inclusion of adjuvant melatonin for patients with early-stage NSCLC. Evidence suggests there may be a benefit for those with late-stage disease,” the authors wrote. “However, because of the mixed findings observed, we recommend a follow-up randomized, controlled trial involving a larger population focusing on later-stage resected lung cancer to clarify these results.”

“I would very much like to pursue another controlled study of melatonin specifically in a group of late-stage lung cancer and possibly in other more advanced cancer types,” said lead author Dugald Seely, ND, of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in Toronto.
 

Study rationale and design

Melatonin has shown promise for treating patients with lung cancer, Dr. Seely and colleagues noted. Melatonin is often recommended by naturopathic doctors following lung cancer surgery, but until now there was no high-level evidence regarding the practice.

For their study, Dr. Seely and colleagues evaluated 709 patients who had undergone NSCLC resection. The patients were randomized to receive placebo (n = 353) or melatonin (n = 356) 1 hour before bedtime for 1 year. A 20-mg melatonin dose was used, which is common in clinical practice and research.

The study arms were well matched, with no “clinically meaningful” differences in demographics, surgery type, cancer type, stage of cancer, or preoperative comorbidities, according to the researchers.

The mean age in both treatment arms was 67 years. Overall, 134 participants received adjuvant chemotherapy (66 melatonin, 68 placebo), and 43 had adjuvant radiation (22 melatonin, 21 placebo).
 

Results

For 2-year DFS, melatonin showed an adjusted relative risk of 1.01 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.22; P = .94) versus placebo. The adjusted relative risk in the per-protocol analysis was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.96-1.32; P = .14.)

At 5 years, the median DFS was not reached in either treatment arm. Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.86-1.09; P = .84) for 5-year DFS.

Among patients with stage I-II NSCLC, the median DFS was not reached at 5 years in either treatment arm. Among patients with stage III-IV NSCLC, the median DFS was 18 months in both arms.

Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.85-1.11; P = .66) in patients with early-stage NSCLC and a hazard reduction of 25% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .005) in patients with late-stage NSCLC.

For the entire cohort, there were no significant differences between treatment arms in the number, severity, or seriousness of adverse events. Likewise, there were no significant differences between the treatment arms with regard to fatigue, quality of life, or sleep at 1 or 2 years.

Dr. Seely said the most surprising thing about this study was that melatonin didn’t help with sleep.

“Since initiation of the trial, my thinking on the right dose of melatonin to support sleep has changed. Clinically, I see extended-release and, indeed, lower doses to be more effective than 20 mg nightly,” he noted.

Dr. Seely and colleagues also assessed proposed mechanisms for melatonin’s possible benefit in NSCLC but found no effect on natural killer cell cytotoxicity or phenotype and no effect on blood levels of inflammatory cytokines in a substudy of 92 patients.

This research was funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation and the Gateway for Cancer Research Foundation. The researchers had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

One year of melatonin, given at 20 mg nightly, after complete resection of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS) in a phase 3 trial.

There was a hint of benefit with melatonin among patients with stage III/IV NSCLC. These patients had a hazard reduction of 25% in 5-year DFS. However, the median DFS for patients with advanced disease was the same whether they received melatonin or placebo – 18 months.

In the overall study population, melatonin had no beneficial effects on quality of life, sleep, anxiety, depression, pain, or fatigue, and it did not reduce adverse events from chemotherapy or radiation.

These results were reported in EClinicalMedicine.

“In light of the results, we do not recommend the inclusion of adjuvant melatonin for patients with early-stage NSCLC. Evidence suggests there may be a benefit for those with late-stage disease,” the authors wrote. “However, because of the mixed findings observed, we recommend a follow-up randomized, controlled trial involving a larger population focusing on later-stage resected lung cancer to clarify these results.”

“I would very much like to pursue another controlled study of melatonin specifically in a group of late-stage lung cancer and possibly in other more advanced cancer types,” said lead author Dugald Seely, ND, of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in Toronto.
 

Study rationale and design

Melatonin has shown promise for treating patients with lung cancer, Dr. Seely and colleagues noted. Melatonin is often recommended by naturopathic doctors following lung cancer surgery, but until now there was no high-level evidence regarding the practice.

For their study, Dr. Seely and colleagues evaluated 709 patients who had undergone NSCLC resection. The patients were randomized to receive placebo (n = 353) or melatonin (n = 356) 1 hour before bedtime for 1 year. A 20-mg melatonin dose was used, which is common in clinical practice and research.

The study arms were well matched, with no “clinically meaningful” differences in demographics, surgery type, cancer type, stage of cancer, or preoperative comorbidities, according to the researchers.

The mean age in both treatment arms was 67 years. Overall, 134 participants received adjuvant chemotherapy (66 melatonin, 68 placebo), and 43 had adjuvant radiation (22 melatonin, 21 placebo).
 

Results

For 2-year DFS, melatonin showed an adjusted relative risk of 1.01 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.22; P = .94) versus placebo. The adjusted relative risk in the per-protocol analysis was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.96-1.32; P = .14.)

At 5 years, the median DFS was not reached in either treatment arm. Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.86-1.09; P = .84) for 5-year DFS.

Among patients with stage I-II NSCLC, the median DFS was not reached at 5 years in either treatment arm. Among patients with stage III-IV NSCLC, the median DFS was 18 months in both arms.

Melatonin showed a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.85-1.11; P = .66) in patients with early-stage NSCLC and a hazard reduction of 25% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .005) in patients with late-stage NSCLC.

For the entire cohort, there were no significant differences between treatment arms in the number, severity, or seriousness of adverse events. Likewise, there were no significant differences between the treatment arms with regard to fatigue, quality of life, or sleep at 1 or 2 years.

Dr. Seely said the most surprising thing about this study was that melatonin didn’t help with sleep.

“Since initiation of the trial, my thinking on the right dose of melatonin to support sleep has changed. Clinically, I see extended-release and, indeed, lower doses to be more effective than 20 mg nightly,” he noted.

Dr. Seely and colleagues also assessed proposed mechanisms for melatonin’s possible benefit in NSCLC but found no effect on natural killer cell cytotoxicity or phenotype and no effect on blood levels of inflammatory cytokines in a substudy of 92 patients.

This research was funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation and the Gateway for Cancer Research Foundation. The researchers had no relevant disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

U.S. regulators are stepping up scrutiny of therapies that were granted an accelerated approval to treat cancers on the basis of surrogate endpoints but have failed to show clinical or survival benefits upon more extensive testing.

At issue are a number of cancer indications for immunotherapies. Four have already been withdrawn (voluntarily by the manufacturer), and six more will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.

In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approvals to oncology medicines on the basis of evidence that suggests a benefit for patients. Examples of such evidence relate to response rates and estimates of tumor shrinkage. But these approvals are granted on the condition that the manufacturer conducts larger clinical trials that show clinical benefit, including benefit in overall survival.

Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, has argued that the point of these conditional approvals is to find acceptable surrogate markers to allow people with “desperate illnesses” to have access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine the drug’s actual benefit to patients.

Oncologists are now questioning whether the FDA has become too lenient in its approach, Daniel A. Goldstein, MD, a senior physician in medical oncology and internal medicine at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, told this news organization.

“The main two things you want from a cancer drug is to live longer and live a higher quality of life,” said Goldstein. “But these endpoints that they’ve been using over the past few years are not really giving us confidence that these drugs are actually going to help to live longer or better.”

Dr. Pazdur said the FDA will consider withdrawing its accelerated approvals when results of further studies do not confirm expected benefit for patients.

“This is like the pendulum has swung as far as it was going to swing and now is on the backswing,” said Dr. Goldstein, also of the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “You could call this a watershed moment.”

Although there’s near universal interest in allowing people with advanced cancer access to promising medicines, there’s also rising concern about exposing patients needlessly to costly drugs with potentially tough side effects. That may prompt a shift in the standards U.S. regulators apply to cancer medicines, Dr. Goldstein said.
 

Indications withdrawn and under review

In a meeting scheduled for April 27-29, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review indications granted through the accelerated approval process for three immunotherapies: pembrolizumab (Keytruda), atezolizumab (Tecentriq), and nivolumab (Opdivo).

It is part of an industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals for cancer indications in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA noted.

The process has already led to voluntary withdrawals of four cancer indications by the manufacturers, including one indication each for pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab, and one for durvalumab (Imfinzi).

All of these immunotherapies are approved for numerous cancer indications, and they all remain on the market. It is only the U.S. approvals for particular cancer indications that have been withdrawn.

In the past, olaratumab (Lartruvo) was withdrawn from the market altogether. The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug for soft tissue sarcoma, but clinical benefit was not confirmed in a phase 3 trial.
 

Issue highlighted by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Gyawali

In recent years, much of the attention on accelerated approvals was spurred by the work of a few researchers, particularly Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, from Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ont. (Both are regular contributors to the oncology section of this news organization.)

Dr. Goldstein made this point in a tweet about the FDA’s announcement of the April ODAC meetings:

“Well done to @oncology_bg and @VPrasadMDMPH among others for highlighting in their papers that the FDA wasn’t properly evaluating accelerated approval drugs.

FDA have listened.

And I thought that the impact of academia was limited!”

Dr. Prasad has made the case for closer scrutiny of accelerated approvals in a number of journal articles and in his 2020 book, “Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer,” published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

The book includes highlights of a 2016 article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings that focused on surrogate endpoints used for FDA approvals. In the article, Dr. Prasad and his coauthor report that they did not find formal analyses of the strength of the surrogate-survival correlation in 14 of 25 cases of accelerated approvals (56%) and in 11 of 30 traditional approvals (37%).

“Our results were concerning. They imply that many surrogates are based on little more than a gut feeling. You might rationalize that and argue a gut feeling is the same as ‘reasonably likely to predict,’ but no reasonable person could think a gut feeling means established,” Dr. Prasad writes in his book. “Our result suggests the FDA is using surrogate endpoints far beyond what may be fair or reasonable.”

Dr. Gyawali has argued that the process by which the FDA assesses cancer drugs for approvals has undergone a profound shift. He has most recently remarked on this in an October 2020 commentary on Medscape.

“Until the recent floodgate of approvals based on response rates from single-arm trials, the majority of cancer therapy decisions were supported by evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs),” Dr. Gyawali wrote. “The evidence base to support clinical decisions in managing therapeutic side effects has been comparatively sparse.”
 

Accelerated approval to improve access

The FDA has struggled for about 2 decades with questions of where to set the bar on evidence for promising cancer drugs.

The agency’s accelerated approval program for drugs began in 1992. During the first decade, the focus was largely on medicines related to HIV.

In the early 2000s, oncology drugs began to dominate the program.

Dr. Pazdur has presided over the FDA’s marked changes regarding the use of surrogate markers when weighing whether to allow sales of cancer medicines. Formerly a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Dr. Pazdur joined the FDA as director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products in 1999.

Soon after his appointment, he had to field inquiries from pharmaceutical companies about how much evidence they needed to receive accelerated approvals.

Early on, he publicly expressed impatience about the drugmakers’ approach. “The purpose of accelerated approval was not accelerated drug company profits,” Dr. Padzur said at a 2004 ODAC meeting.

Rather, the point is to allow access to potentially helpful drugs while work continues to determine their actual benefit to patients, he explained.

“It wasn’t a license to do less, less, less, and less to a point now that we may be getting companies that are coming in” intent on determining the minimum evidence the FDA will take, Dr. Pazdur said. “It shouldn’t be what is the lowest. It is what is a sufficient amount to give patients and physicians a real understanding of what their drug will do.”

In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Dr. Pazdur said that his views on cancer drug approvals have evolved with time. He described himself as being “on a jihad to streamline the review process and get things out the door faster.”

“I have evolved from regulator to regulator-advocate,” Dr. Pazdur told the newspaper.

His attitude reflected his personal experience in losing his wife to ovarian cancer in 2015, as well as shifts in science and law. In 2012, Congress passed a law that gave the FDA new resources to speed medicines for life-threatening diseases to market. In addition, advances in genetics appeared to be making some medications more effective and easier to test, Dr. Pazdur said in The New York Times interview.
 

Withdrawals seen as sign of success

Since the program’s inception, only 6% of accelerated approvals for oncology indications have been withdrawn, the FDA said.

It would be a sign that the program is working if the April meetings lead to further withdrawals of indications that have been granted accelerated approval, Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said in an interview with this news organization.

“It shouldn’t be seen as a failure,” Dr. Gralow said.

In her own practice at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, she has seen the value of emerging therapies for patients fighting advanced cancers. During her 25 years of clinical practice in an academic setting, she has gained access to drugs through single-patient investigative new drug applications.

However, this path is not an option for many patients who undergo treatment in facilities other than academic centers, she commented. She noted that the accelerated approval process is a way to expand access to emerging medicines, but she sees a need for caution in the use of drugs that have been given only this conditional approval. She emphasizes that such drugs may be suitable only for certain patients.

“I would say that, for metastatic patients, patients with incurable disease, we are willing to take some risk,” Dr. Gralow said. “We don’t have other options. They can’t wait the years that it would take to get a drug approved.”

One such patient is David Mitchell, who serves as the consumer representative on ODAC. He told this news organization that he is taking three drugs for multiple myeloma that received accelerated approvals: pomalidomide, bortezomib, and daratumumab.

“I want the FDA to have the option to approve drugs in an accelerated pathway, because as a patient taking three drugs granted accelerated approval, I’m benefiting – I’ve lived the benefit,” Mr. Mitchell said, “and I want other patients to have the opportunity to have that benefit.”

He believes that the FDA’s approach regarding accelerated approvals serves to get potentially beneficial medicines to patients who have few options and also fulfills the FDA’s mandate to protect the public from treatments that have little benefit but can cause harm.

Accelerated approval also offers needed flexibility to drugmakers as they develop more specifically targeted drugs for diseases that affect relatively few people, such as multiple myeloma, he said. “As the targeting of your therapies gets tighter and for smaller groups of patients, you have a harder time following the traditional model,” such as conducting large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that may indicate increased overall survival, he said.

“To me, this is the way the FDA intended it to work,” he added. “It’s going to offer the accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint for a safe drug, but it’s going to require the confirmatory trial, and if the confirmatory trial fails, it will pull the drug off the market.”

Some medicines that have received accelerated approvals may ultimately be found not to benefit patients, Mr. Mitchell acknowledged. But people in his situation, whose disease has progressed despite treatments, may want to take that risk, he added.


 

Four cancer indications recently withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer

• December 2020: Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy (Bristol Myers Squibb).
• February 2021: Durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease has progressed during or following platinum-based chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum-containing chemotherapy (AstraZeneca).
• March 2021: Pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy (Merck).
• March 2021: Atezolizumab for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing atezolizumab chemotherapy or disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy (Genentech).

Six cancer indications under review at the April 2021 ODAC meeting

• Atezolizumab indicated in combination with protein-bound  for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative  whose tumors express PD-L1 (PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area), as determined by an FDA-approved test.
• Atezolizumab indicated for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 (Combined Positive Score ≥1), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy.
• Pembrolizumab indicated for the treatment of patients with  who have been previously treated with .
• Nivolumab indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib.

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

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first report on responses to COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer suggests that, for these patients, the immune response that occurs after the first dose of vaccine is reduced, in comparison with the response that occurs in healthy individuals.

The new findings, which are soon to be published as a preprint, cast doubt on the current U.K. policy of delaying the second dose of the vaccine.

Delaying the second dose can leave most patients with cancer wholly or partially unprotected, according to the researchers. Moreover, such a delay has implications for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the cancer patient’s environs as well as for the evolution of virus variants that could be of concern, the researchers concluded.

The data come from a British study that included 151 patients with cancer and 54 healthy control persons. All participants received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).

This vaccine requires two doses. The first few participants in this study were given the second dose 21 days after they had received the first dose, but then national guidelines changed, and the remaining participants had to wait 12 weeks to receive their second dose.

The researchers reported that, among health controls, the immune efficacy of the first dose was very high (97% efficacious). By contrast, among patients with solid tumors, the immune efficacy of a single dose was strikingly low (39%), and it was even lower in patients with hematologic malignancies (13%).

The second dose of vaccine greatly and rapidly increased the immune efficacy in patients with solid tumors (95% within 2 weeks of receiving the second dose), the researchers added.

Too few patients with hematologic cancers had received the second dose before the study ended for clear conclusions to be drawn. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that 50% of patients with hematologic cancers who had received the booster at day 21 were seropositive at 5 weeks vs. only 8% of those who had not received the booster.

“Our data provide the first real-world evidence of immune efficacy following one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in immunocompromised patient populations [and] clearly show that the poor one-dose efficacy in cancer patients can be rescued with an early booster at day 21,” commented senior author Sheeba Irshad, MD, senior clinical lecturer, King’s College London.

“Based on our findings, we would recommend an urgent review of the vaccine strategy for clinically extremely vulnerable groups. Until then, it is important that cancer patients continue to observe all public health measures in place, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination,” Dr. Irshad added.

The paper, with first author Leticia Monin-Aldama, PhD, is scheduled to appear on the preprint server medRxiv. It has not undergone peer review. The paper was distributed to journalists, with comments from experts not involved in the study, by the UK Science Media Centre.

These data are “of immediate importance” to patients with cancer, commented Shoba Amarnath, PhD, Newcastle University research fellow, Laboratory of T-cell Regulation, Newcastle University Center for Cancer, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“These findings are consistent with our understanding. … We know that the immune system within cancer patients is compromised as compared to healthy controls,” Dr. Amarnath said. “The data in the study support the notion that, in solid cancer patients, a considerable delay in second dose will extend the period when cancer patients are at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Although more data are required, “this study does raise the issue of whether patients with cancer, other diseases, or those undergoing therapies that affect the body’s immune response should be fast-tracked for their second vaccine dose,” commented Lawrence Young, PhD, professor of molecular oncology and director of the Warwick Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

Stephen Evans, MSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, underlined that the study is “essentially” observational and “inevitable limitations must be taken into account.

“Nevertheless, these results do suggest that the vaccines may well not protect those patients with cancer as well as those without cancer,” Mr. Evans said. He added that it is “important that this population continues to observe all COVID-19–associated measures, such as social distancing and shielding when attending hospitals, even after vaccination.”

Study details

Previous studies have shown that some patients with cancer have prolonged responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, with ongoing immune dysregulation, inefficient seroconversion, and prolonged viral shedding.

There are few data, however, on how these patients respond to COVID-19 vaccination. The authors point out that, among the 18,860 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine during its development trials, “none with an active oncological diagnosis was included.”

To investigate this issue, they launched the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients (SOAP-02) study.

The 151 patients with cancer who participated in this study were mostly elderly, the authors noted (75% were older than 65 years; the median age was 73 years). The majority (63%) had solid-tumor malignancies. Of those, 8% had late-stage disease and had been living with their cancer for more than 24 months.

The healthy control persons were vaccine-eligible primary health care workers who were not age matched to the cancer patients.

All participants received the first dose of vaccine; 31 (of 151) patients with cancer and 16 (of 54) healthy control persons received the second dose on day 21.

The remaining participants were scheduled to receive their second dose 12 weeks later (after the study ended), in line with the changes in the national guidelines.

The team reported that, approximately 21 days after receiving the first vaccine dose, the immune efficacy of the vaccine was estimated to be 97% among healthy control persons vs. 39% for patients with solid tumors and only 13% for those with hematologic malignancies (P < .0001 for both).

T-cell responses, as assessed via interferon-gamma and/or interleukin-2 production, were observed in 82% of healthy control persons, 71% of patients with solid tumors, and 50% of those with hematologic cancers.

Vaccine boosting at day 21 resulted in immune efficacy of 100% for healthy control persons and 95% for patients with solid tumors. In contrast, only 43% of those who did not receive the second dose were seropositive 2 weeks later.

Further analysis suggested that participants who did not have a serologic response were “spread evenly” across different cancer types, but the reduced responses were more frequent among patients who had received the vaccine within 15 days of cancer treatment, especially chemotherapy, and had undergone intensive treatments.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas Trust Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity, Cancer Research UK, and program grants from Breast Cancer Now. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

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

Evaluation of oral antineoplastic agent (OAN) adherence patterns have identified correlations between nonadherence or over-adherence and poorer disease-related outcomes. Multiple studies have focused on imatinib use in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) due to its continuous, long-term use. A study by Ganesan and colleagues found that nonadherence to imatinib showed a significant decrease in 5-year event-free survival between 76.7% of adherent participants compared with 59.8% of nonadherent participants.¹ This study found that 44% of patients who were adherent to imatinib achieved complete cytogenetic response vs only 26% of patients who were nonadherent. In another study of imatinib for CML, major molecular response (MMR) was strongly correlated with adherence and no patients with adherence < 80% were able to achieve MMR.² Similarly, in studies of tamoxifen for breast cancer, < 80% adherence resulted in a 10% decrease in survival when compared to those who were more adherent.^3,4

In addition to the clinical implications of nonadherence, there can be a significant cost associated with suboptimal use of these medications. The price of a single dose of OAN medication may cost as much as $440.⁵

The benefits of multidisciplinary care teams have been identified in many studies.^6,7 While studies are limited in oncology, pharmacists provide vital contributions to the oncology multidisciplinary team when managing OANs as these health care professionals have expert knowledge of the medications, potential adverse events (AEs), and necessary monitoring parameters.⁸ In one study, patients seen by the pharmacist-led oral chemotherapy management program experienced improved clinical outcomes and response to therapy when compared with preintervention patients (early molecular response, 88.9% vs 54.8%, P = .01; major molecular response, 83.3% vs 57.6%, P = .06).⁹ During the study, 318 AEs were reported, leading to 235 pharmacist interventions to ameliorate AEs and improve adherence.

The primary objective of this study was to measure the impact of a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic on medication adherence. The secondary objective was to estimate cost-savings of this new service.

Methods

Prior to July 2014, several limitations were identified related to OAN prescribing and monitoring at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana (RLRVAMC). The prescription ordering process relied primarily on the patient to initiate refills, rather than the prescriber OAN prescriptions also lacked consistency for number of refills or quantities dispensed. Furthermore, ordering of antineoplastic products was not limited to hematology/oncology providers. Patients were identified with significant supply on hand at the time of medication discontinuation, creating concerns for medication waste, tolerability, and nonadherence.

As a result, opportunities were identified to improve the prescribing process, recommended monitoring, toxicity and tolerability evaluation, medication reconciliation, and medication adherence. In July of 2014, the RLRVAMC adopted a new chemotherapy order entry system capable of restricting prescriptions to hematology/oncology providers and limiting dispensed quantities and refill amounts. A comprehensive pharmacist driven OAN renewal clinic was implemented on September 1, 2014 with the goal of improving long-term adherence and tolerability, in addition to minimizing medication waste.

Study Design and Setting

This was a pre/post retrospective cohort, quality improvement study of patients enrolled in the RLRVAMC OAN pharmacist renewal clinic. The study was deemed exempt from institutional review board (IRB) by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Research and Development Department.

Study Population

Patients were included in the preimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of an eligible OAN. Therapy for the preimplementation group was required to be a monthly duration > 21 days and between the dates of September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2014. Patients were included in the postimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of the studied OANs between September 1, 2014 and January 31, 2015. Patients were excluded if they had filled < 2 prescriptions of OAN; were managed by a non-VA oncologist or hematologist; or received an OAN other than those listed in Table 1.

Data Collection

For all patients in both the pre- and postimplementation cohorts, a standardized data collection tool was used to collect the following via electronic health record review by a PGY2 oncology resident: age, race, gender, oral antineoplastic agent, refill dates, days’ supply, estimated unit cost per dose cancer diagnosis, distance from the RLRVAMC, copay status, presence of hospitalizations/ED visits/dosage reductions, discontinuation rates, reasons for discontinuation, and total number of current prescriptions. The presence or absence of dosage reductions were collected to identify concerns for tolerability, but only the original dose for the preimplementation group and dosage at time of clinic enrollment for the postimplementation group was included in the analysis.

Outcomes and Statistical Analyses

The primary outcome was medication adherence defined as the median medication possession ratio (MPR) before and after implementation of the clinic. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who were adherent from before implementation to after and estimated cost-savings of this clinic after implementation. MPR was used to estimate medication adherence by taking the cumulative day supply of medication on hand divided by the number of days on therapy.¹² Number of days on therapy was determined by taking the difference on the start date of the new medication regimen and the discontinuation date of the same regimen. Patients were grouped by adherence into one of the following categories: < 0.8, 0.8 to 0.89, 0.9 to 1, and > 1.1. Patients were considered adherent if they reported taking ≥ 90% (MPR ≥ 0.9) of prescribed doses, adopted from the study by Anderson and colleagues.¹² A patient with an MPR > 1, likely due to filling prior to the anticipated refill date, was considered 100% adherent (MPR = 1). If a patient switched OAN during the study, both agents were included as separate entities.

A conservative estimate of cost-savings was made by multiplying the RLRVAMC cost per unit of medication at time of initial prescription fill by the number of units taken each day multiplied by the total days’ supply on hand at time of therapy discontinuation. Patients with an MPR < 1 at time of therapy discontinuation were assumed to have zero remaining units on hand and zero cost savings was estimated. Waste, for purposes of cost-savings, was calculated for all MPR values > 1. Additional supply anticipated to be on hand from dose reductions was not included in the estimated cost of unused medication.

Descriptive statistics compared demographic characteristics between the pre- and postimplementation groups. MPR data were not normally distributed, which required the use of nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests to compare pre- and postMPRs. Pearson χ² compared the proportion of adherent patients between groups while descriptive statistics were used to estimate cost savings. Significance was determined based on a P value < .05. IBM SPSS Statistics software was used for all statistical analyses. As this was a complete sample of all eligible subjects, no sample size calculation was performed.

Results

In the preimplementation period, 246 patients received an OAN and 61 patients received an OAN in the postimplementation period (Figure 1). Of the 246 patients in the preimplementation period, 98 were eligible and included in the preimplementation group. Similarly, of the 61 patients in the postimplementation period, 35 patients met inclusion criteria for the postimplementation group. The study population was predominantly male with an average age of approximately 70 years in both groups (Table 3). More than 70% of the population in each group was White. No statistically significant differences between groups were identified. The most commonly prescribed OAN in the preimplementation group were abiraterone, imatinib, and enzalutamide (Table 3). In the postimplementation group, the most commonly prescribed agents were abiraterone, imatinib, pazopanib, and dasatinib. No significant differences were observed in prescribing of individual agents between the pre- and postimplementation groups or other characteristics that may affect adherence including patient copay status, number of concomitant medications, and driving distance from the RLRVAMC.

Thirty-six (36.7%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) and 18 (18.4%) had an MPR < 0.8. Fifteen (15.3%) patients in the preimplementation clinic were considered overadherent (MPR > 1.1). Forty-seven (47.9%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1) while all 35 (100%) patients in the postimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1). No non- or overadherent patients were identified in the postimplementation group (Figure 2). The median MPR for all patients in the preimplementation group was 0.94 compared with 1.06 (P < .001) in the postimplementation group.

Discussion

OANs are widely used therapies, with more than 25 million doses administered per year in the United States alone.¹² The use of these agents will continue to grow as more targeted agents become available and patients request more convenient treatment options. The role for hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy services must adapt to this increased usage of OANs, including increasing pharmacist involvement in medication education, adherence and tolerability assessments, and proactive drug interaction monitoring.However, additional research is needed to determine optimal management strategies.

Our study aimed to compare OAN adherence among patients at a tertiary care VA hospital before and after implementation of a renewal clinic. The preimplementation population had a median MPR of 0.94 compared with 1.06 in the postimplementation group (P < .001). Although an ideal MPR is 1.0, we aimed for a slightly higher MPR to allow a supply buffer in the event of prescription delivery delays, as more than 90% of prescriptions are mailed to patients from a regional mail-order pharmacy. Importantly, the median MPRs do not adequately convey the impact from this clinic. The proportion of patients who were considered adherent to OANs increased from 47.9% in the preimplementation to 100% in the postimplementation period. These finding suggest that the clinical pharmacist role to assess and encourage adherence through monitoring tolerability of these OANs improved the overall medication taking experience of these patients.

Upon initial evaluation of adherence pre- and postimplementation, median adherence rates in both groups appeared to be above goal at 0.94 and 1.06 respectively. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5- to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer. After correcting for patients with confounding reasons for excess (dose reductions, breaks in treatment, etc.), the median MPR in the prerefill clinic group decreased to 0.9 and the MPR in the postrefill clinic group increased slightly to 1.08. Although the median adherence rate in both the pre- and postimplementation groups were above goal of 0.90, 36% of the patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) compared with no patients in the postimplementation group. Therefore, our intervention to improve patient adherence appeared to be beneficial at our institution.

In addition to improving adherence, one of the goals of the renewal clinic was to minimize excess supply at the time of therapy discontinuation. This was accomplished by aligning medication fills with medical visits and objective monitoring, as well as limiting supply to no more than 30 days. Of the patients in the postimplementation group, only 1 patient had remaining medication at the time of therapy discontinuation compared with 14 patients in the preimplementation group. The estimated cost savings from excess supply was $36,335. Limiting the amount of unused supply not only saves money for the patient and the institution, but also decreases opportunity for improper hazardous waste disposal and unnecessary exposure of hazardous materials to others.

Our results show the pharmacist intervention in the coordination of renewals improved adherence, minimized medication waste, and saved money. The cost of pharmacist time participating in the refill clinic was not calculated. Each visit was completed in approximately 5 minutes, with subsequent documentation and coordination taking an additional 5 to 10 minutes. During the launch of this service, the oncology pharmacy resident provided all coverage of the clinic. Oversite of the resident was provided by hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy specialists. We have continued to utilize pharmacy resident coverage since that time to meet education needs and keep the estimated cost per visit low. Another option in the case that pharmacy residents are not available would be utilization of a pharmacy technician, intern, or professional student to conduct the adherence and tolerability phone assessments. Our escalation protocol allows intervention by clinical pharmacy specialist and/or other health care providers when necessary. Trainees have only required basic training on how to use the protocol.

Limitations

Due to this study’s retrospective design, an inherent limitation is dependence on prescriber and refill records for documentation of initiation and discontinuation dates. Therefore, only the association of impact of pharmacist intervention on medication adherence can be determined as opposed to causation. We did not take into account discrepancies in day supply secondary to ‘held’ therapies, dose reductions, or doses supplied during an inpatient admission, which may alter estimates of MPR and cost-savings data. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5 to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer, thereby skewing MPR values. This study did not account for cost avoidance resulting from early identification and management of toxicity. Finally, the postimplementation data only spans 4 months and a longer duration of time is needed to more accurately determine sustainability of renewal clinic interventions and provide comprehensive evaluation of cost-avoidance.

Conclusion

Implementation of an OAN renewal clinic was associated with an increase in MPR, improved proportion of patients considered adherent, and an estimated $36,335 cost-savings. However, prospective evaluation and a longer study duration are needed to determine causality of improved adherence and cost-savings associated with a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic.

Evaluation of oral antineoplastic agent (OAN) adherence patterns have identified correlations between nonadherence or over-adherence and poorer disease-related outcomes. Multiple studies have focused on imatinib use in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) due to its continuous, long-term use. A study by Ganesan and colleagues found that nonadherence to imatinib showed a significant decrease in 5-year event-free survival between 76.7% of adherent participants compared with 59.8% of nonadherent participants.¹ This study found that 44% of patients who were adherent to imatinib achieved complete cytogenetic response vs only 26% of patients who were nonadherent. In another study of imatinib for CML, major molecular response (MMR) was strongly correlated with adherence and no patients with adherence < 80% were able to achieve MMR.² Similarly, in studies of tamoxifen for breast cancer, < 80% adherence resulted in a 10% decrease in survival when compared to those who were more adherent.^3,4

In addition to the clinical implications of nonadherence, there can be a significant cost associated with suboptimal use of these medications. The price of a single dose of OAN medication may cost as much as $440.⁵

The benefits of multidisciplinary care teams have been identified in many studies.^6,7 While studies are limited in oncology, pharmacists provide vital contributions to the oncology multidisciplinary team when managing OANs as these health care professionals have expert knowledge of the medications, potential adverse events (AEs), and necessary monitoring parameters.⁸ In one study, patients seen by the pharmacist-led oral chemotherapy management program experienced improved clinical outcomes and response to therapy when compared with preintervention patients (early molecular response, 88.9% vs 54.8%, P = .01; major molecular response, 83.3% vs 57.6%, P = .06).⁹ During the study, 318 AEs were reported, leading to 235 pharmacist interventions to ameliorate AEs and improve adherence.

The primary objective of this study was to measure the impact of a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic on medication adherence. The secondary objective was to estimate cost-savings of this new service.

Methods

Prior to July 2014, several limitations were identified related to OAN prescribing and monitoring at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana (RLRVAMC). The prescription ordering process relied primarily on the patient to initiate refills, rather than the prescriber OAN prescriptions also lacked consistency for number of refills or quantities dispensed. Furthermore, ordering of antineoplastic products was not limited to hematology/oncology providers. Patients were identified with significant supply on hand at the time of medication discontinuation, creating concerns for medication waste, tolerability, and nonadherence.

As a result, opportunities were identified to improve the prescribing process, recommended monitoring, toxicity and tolerability evaluation, medication reconciliation, and medication adherence. In July of 2014, the RLRVAMC adopted a new chemotherapy order entry system capable of restricting prescriptions to hematology/oncology providers and limiting dispensed quantities and refill amounts. A comprehensive pharmacist driven OAN renewal clinic was implemented on September 1, 2014 with the goal of improving long-term adherence and tolerability, in addition to minimizing medication waste.

Study Design and Setting

This was a pre/post retrospective cohort, quality improvement study of patients enrolled in the RLRVAMC OAN pharmacist renewal clinic. The study was deemed exempt from institutional review board (IRB) by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Research and Development Department.

Study Population

Patients were included in the preimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of an eligible OAN. Therapy for the preimplementation group was required to be a monthly duration > 21 days and between the dates of September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2014. Patients were included in the postimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of the studied OANs between September 1, 2014 and January 31, 2015. Patients were excluded if they had filled < 2 prescriptions of OAN; were managed by a non-VA oncologist or hematologist; or received an OAN other than those listed in Table 1.

Data Collection

For all patients in both the pre- and postimplementation cohorts, a standardized data collection tool was used to collect the following via electronic health record review by a PGY2 oncology resident: age, race, gender, oral antineoplastic agent, refill dates, days’ supply, estimated unit cost per dose cancer diagnosis, distance from the RLRVAMC, copay status, presence of hospitalizations/ED visits/dosage reductions, discontinuation rates, reasons for discontinuation, and total number of current prescriptions. The presence or absence of dosage reductions were collected to identify concerns for tolerability, but only the original dose for the preimplementation group and dosage at time of clinic enrollment for the postimplementation group was included in the analysis.

Outcomes and Statistical Analyses

The primary outcome was medication adherence defined as the median medication possession ratio (MPR) before and after implementation of the clinic. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who were adherent from before implementation to after and estimated cost-savings of this clinic after implementation. MPR was used to estimate medication adherence by taking the cumulative day supply of medication on hand divided by the number of days on therapy.¹² Number of days on therapy was determined by taking the difference on the start date of the new medication regimen and the discontinuation date of the same regimen. Patients were grouped by adherence into one of the following categories: < 0.8, 0.8 to 0.89, 0.9 to 1, and > 1.1. Patients were considered adherent if they reported taking ≥ 90% (MPR ≥ 0.9) of prescribed doses, adopted from the study by Anderson and colleagues.¹² A patient with an MPR > 1, likely due to filling prior to the anticipated refill date, was considered 100% adherent (MPR = 1). If a patient switched OAN during the study, both agents were included as separate entities.

A conservative estimate of cost-savings was made by multiplying the RLRVAMC cost per unit of medication at time of initial prescription fill by the number of units taken each day multiplied by the total days’ supply on hand at time of therapy discontinuation. Patients with an MPR < 1 at time of therapy discontinuation were assumed to have zero remaining units on hand and zero cost savings was estimated. Waste, for purposes of cost-savings, was calculated for all MPR values > 1. Additional supply anticipated to be on hand from dose reductions was not included in the estimated cost of unused medication.

Descriptive statistics compared demographic characteristics between the pre- and postimplementation groups. MPR data were not normally distributed, which required the use of nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests to compare pre- and postMPRs. Pearson χ² compared the proportion of adherent patients between groups while descriptive statistics were used to estimate cost savings. Significance was determined based on a P value < .05. IBM SPSS Statistics software was used for all statistical analyses. As this was a complete sample of all eligible subjects, no sample size calculation was performed.

Results

In the preimplementation period, 246 patients received an OAN and 61 patients received an OAN in the postimplementation period (Figure 1). Of the 246 patients in the preimplementation period, 98 were eligible and included in the preimplementation group. Similarly, of the 61 patients in the postimplementation period, 35 patients met inclusion criteria for the postimplementation group. The study population was predominantly male with an average age of approximately 70 years in both groups (Table 3). More than 70% of the population in each group was White. No statistically significant differences between groups were identified. The most commonly prescribed OAN in the preimplementation group were abiraterone, imatinib, and enzalutamide (Table 3). In the postimplementation group, the most commonly prescribed agents were abiraterone, imatinib, pazopanib, and dasatinib. No significant differences were observed in prescribing of individual agents between the pre- and postimplementation groups or other characteristics that may affect adherence including patient copay status, number of concomitant medications, and driving distance from the RLRVAMC.

Thirty-six (36.7%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) and 18 (18.4%) had an MPR < 0.8. Fifteen (15.3%) patients in the preimplementation clinic were considered overadherent (MPR > 1.1). Forty-seven (47.9%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1) while all 35 (100%) patients in the postimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1). No non- or overadherent patients were identified in the postimplementation group (Figure 2). The median MPR for all patients in the preimplementation group was 0.94 compared with 1.06 (P < .001) in the postimplementation group.

Discussion

OANs are widely used therapies, with more than 25 million doses administered per year in the United States alone.¹² The use of these agents will continue to grow as more targeted agents become available and patients request more convenient treatment options. The role for hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy services must adapt to this increased usage of OANs, including increasing pharmacist involvement in medication education, adherence and tolerability assessments, and proactive drug interaction monitoring.However, additional research is needed to determine optimal management strategies.

Our study aimed to compare OAN adherence among patients at a tertiary care VA hospital before and after implementation of a renewal clinic. The preimplementation population had a median MPR of 0.94 compared with 1.06 in the postimplementation group (P < .001). Although an ideal MPR is 1.0, we aimed for a slightly higher MPR to allow a supply buffer in the event of prescription delivery delays, as more than 90% of prescriptions are mailed to patients from a regional mail-order pharmacy. Importantly, the median MPRs do not adequately convey the impact from this clinic. The proportion of patients who were considered adherent to OANs increased from 47.9% in the preimplementation to 100% in the postimplementation period. These finding suggest that the clinical pharmacist role to assess and encourage adherence through monitoring tolerability of these OANs improved the overall medication taking experience of these patients.

Upon initial evaluation of adherence pre- and postimplementation, median adherence rates in both groups appeared to be above goal at 0.94 and 1.06 respectively. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5- to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer. After correcting for patients with confounding reasons for excess (dose reductions, breaks in treatment, etc.), the median MPR in the prerefill clinic group decreased to 0.9 and the MPR in the postrefill clinic group increased slightly to 1.08. Although the median adherence rate in both the pre- and postimplementation groups were above goal of 0.90, 36% of the patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) compared with no patients in the postimplementation group. Therefore, our intervention to improve patient adherence appeared to be beneficial at our institution.

In addition to improving adherence, one of the goals of the renewal clinic was to minimize excess supply at the time of therapy discontinuation. This was accomplished by aligning medication fills with medical visits and objective monitoring, as well as limiting supply to no more than 30 days. Of the patients in the postimplementation group, only 1 patient had remaining medication at the time of therapy discontinuation compared with 14 patients in the preimplementation group. The estimated cost savings from excess supply was $36,335. Limiting the amount of unused supply not only saves money for the patient and the institution, but also decreases opportunity for improper hazardous waste disposal and unnecessary exposure of hazardous materials to others.

Our results show the pharmacist intervention in the coordination of renewals improved adherence, minimized medication waste, and saved money. The cost of pharmacist time participating in the refill clinic was not calculated. Each visit was completed in approximately 5 minutes, with subsequent documentation and coordination taking an additional 5 to 10 minutes. During the launch of this service, the oncology pharmacy resident provided all coverage of the clinic. Oversite of the resident was provided by hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy specialists. We have continued to utilize pharmacy resident coverage since that time to meet education needs and keep the estimated cost per visit low. Another option in the case that pharmacy residents are not available would be utilization of a pharmacy technician, intern, or professional student to conduct the adherence and tolerability phone assessments. Our escalation protocol allows intervention by clinical pharmacy specialist and/or other health care providers when necessary. Trainees have only required basic training on how to use the protocol.

Limitations

Due to this study’s retrospective design, an inherent limitation is dependence on prescriber and refill records for documentation of initiation and discontinuation dates. Therefore, only the association of impact of pharmacist intervention on medication adherence can be determined as opposed to causation. We did not take into account discrepancies in day supply secondary to ‘held’ therapies, dose reductions, or doses supplied during an inpatient admission, which may alter estimates of MPR and cost-savings data. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5 to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer, thereby skewing MPR values. This study did not account for cost avoidance resulting from early identification and management of toxicity. Finally, the postimplementation data only spans 4 months and a longer duration of time is needed to more accurately determine sustainability of renewal clinic interventions and provide comprehensive evaluation of cost-avoidance.

Conclusion

Implementation of an OAN renewal clinic was associated with an increase in MPR, improved proportion of patients considered adherent, and an estimated $36,335 cost-savings. However, prospective evaluation and a longer study duration are needed to determine causality of improved adherence and cost-savings associated with a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic.

Evaluation of oral antineoplastic agent (OAN) adherence patterns have identified correlations between nonadherence or over-adherence and poorer disease-related outcomes. Multiple studies have focused on imatinib use in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) due to its continuous, long-term use. A study by Ganesan and colleagues found that nonadherence to imatinib showed a significant decrease in 5-year event-free survival between 76.7% of adherent participants compared with 59.8% of nonadherent participants.¹ This study found that 44% of patients who were adherent to imatinib achieved complete cytogenetic response vs only 26% of patients who were nonadherent. In another study of imatinib for CML, major molecular response (MMR) was strongly correlated with adherence and no patients with adherence < 80% were able to achieve MMR.² Similarly, in studies of tamoxifen for breast cancer, < 80% adherence resulted in a 10% decrease in survival when compared to those who were more adherent.^3,4

In addition to the clinical implications of nonadherence, there can be a significant cost associated with suboptimal use of these medications. The price of a single dose of OAN medication may cost as much as $440.⁵

The benefits of multidisciplinary care teams have been identified in many studies.^6,7 While studies are limited in oncology, pharmacists provide vital contributions to the oncology multidisciplinary team when managing OANs as these health care professionals have expert knowledge of the medications, potential adverse events (AEs), and necessary monitoring parameters.⁸ In one study, patients seen by the pharmacist-led oral chemotherapy management program experienced improved clinical outcomes and response to therapy when compared with preintervention patients (early molecular response, 88.9% vs 54.8%, P = .01; major molecular response, 83.3% vs 57.6%, P = .06).⁹ During the study, 318 AEs were reported, leading to 235 pharmacist interventions to ameliorate AEs and improve adherence.

The primary objective of this study was to measure the impact of a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic on medication adherence. The secondary objective was to estimate cost-savings of this new service.

Methods

Prior to July 2014, several limitations were identified related to OAN prescribing and monitoring at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana (RLRVAMC). The prescription ordering process relied primarily on the patient to initiate refills, rather than the prescriber OAN prescriptions also lacked consistency for number of refills or quantities dispensed. Furthermore, ordering of antineoplastic products was not limited to hematology/oncology providers. Patients were identified with significant supply on hand at the time of medication discontinuation, creating concerns for medication waste, tolerability, and nonadherence.

As a result, opportunities were identified to improve the prescribing process, recommended monitoring, toxicity and tolerability evaluation, medication reconciliation, and medication adherence. In July of 2014, the RLRVAMC adopted a new chemotherapy order entry system capable of restricting prescriptions to hematology/oncology providers and limiting dispensed quantities and refill amounts. A comprehensive pharmacist driven OAN renewal clinic was implemented on September 1, 2014 with the goal of improving long-term adherence and tolerability, in addition to minimizing medication waste.

Study Design and Setting

This was a pre/post retrospective cohort, quality improvement study of patients enrolled in the RLRVAMC OAN pharmacist renewal clinic. The study was deemed exempt from institutional review board (IRB) by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Research and Development Department.

Study Population

Patients were included in the preimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of an eligible OAN. Therapy for the preimplementation group was required to be a monthly duration > 21 days and between the dates of September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2014. Patients were included in the postimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of the studied OANs between September 1, 2014 and January 31, 2015. Patients were excluded if they had filled < 2 prescriptions of OAN; were managed by a non-VA oncologist or hematologist; or received an OAN other than those listed in Table 1.

Data Collection

For all patients in both the pre- and postimplementation cohorts, a standardized data collection tool was used to collect the following via electronic health record review by a PGY2 oncology resident: age, race, gender, oral antineoplastic agent, refill dates, days’ supply, estimated unit cost per dose cancer diagnosis, distance from the RLRVAMC, copay status, presence of hospitalizations/ED visits/dosage reductions, discontinuation rates, reasons for discontinuation, and total number of current prescriptions. The presence or absence of dosage reductions were collected to identify concerns for tolerability, but only the original dose for the preimplementation group and dosage at time of clinic enrollment for the postimplementation group was included in the analysis.

Outcomes and Statistical Analyses

The primary outcome was medication adherence defined as the median medication possession ratio (MPR) before and after implementation of the clinic. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who were adherent from before implementation to after and estimated cost-savings of this clinic after implementation. MPR was used to estimate medication adherence by taking the cumulative day supply of medication on hand divided by the number of days on therapy.¹² Number of days on therapy was determined by taking the difference on the start date of the new medication regimen and the discontinuation date of the same regimen. Patients were grouped by adherence into one of the following categories: < 0.8, 0.8 to 0.89, 0.9 to 1, and > 1.1. Patients were considered adherent if they reported taking ≥ 90% (MPR ≥ 0.9) of prescribed doses, adopted from the study by Anderson and colleagues.¹² A patient with an MPR > 1, likely due to filling prior to the anticipated refill date, was considered 100% adherent (MPR = 1). If a patient switched OAN during the study, both agents were included as separate entities.

A conservative estimate of cost-savings was made by multiplying the RLRVAMC cost per unit of medication at time of initial prescription fill by the number of units taken each day multiplied by the total days’ supply on hand at time of therapy discontinuation. Patients with an MPR < 1 at time of therapy discontinuation were assumed to have zero remaining units on hand and zero cost savings was estimated. Waste, for purposes of cost-savings, was calculated for all MPR values > 1. Additional supply anticipated to be on hand from dose reductions was not included in the estimated cost of unused medication.

Descriptive statistics compared demographic characteristics between the pre- and postimplementation groups. MPR data were not normally distributed, which required the use of nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests to compare pre- and postMPRs. Pearson χ² compared the proportion of adherent patients between groups while descriptive statistics were used to estimate cost savings. Significance was determined based on a P value < .05. IBM SPSS Statistics software was used for all statistical analyses. As this was a complete sample of all eligible subjects, no sample size calculation was performed.

Results

In the preimplementation period, 246 patients received an OAN and 61 patients received an OAN in the postimplementation period (Figure 1). Of the 246 patients in the preimplementation period, 98 were eligible and included in the preimplementation group. Similarly, of the 61 patients in the postimplementation period, 35 patients met inclusion criteria for the postimplementation group. The study population was predominantly male with an average age of approximately 70 years in both groups (Table 3). More than 70% of the population in each group was White. No statistically significant differences between groups were identified. The most commonly prescribed OAN in the preimplementation group were abiraterone, imatinib, and enzalutamide (Table 3). In the postimplementation group, the most commonly prescribed agents were abiraterone, imatinib, pazopanib, and dasatinib. No significant differences were observed in prescribing of individual agents between the pre- and postimplementation groups or other characteristics that may affect adherence including patient copay status, number of concomitant medications, and driving distance from the RLRVAMC.

Thirty-six (36.7%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) and 18 (18.4%) had an MPR < 0.8. Fifteen (15.3%) patients in the preimplementation clinic were considered overadherent (MPR > 1.1). Forty-seven (47.9%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1) while all 35 (100%) patients in the postimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1). No non- or overadherent patients were identified in the postimplementation group (Figure 2). The median MPR for all patients in the preimplementation group was 0.94 compared with 1.06 (P < .001) in the postimplementation group.

Discussion

OANs are widely used therapies, with more than 25 million doses administered per year in the United States alone.¹² The use of these agents will continue to grow as more targeted agents become available and patients request more convenient treatment options. The role for hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy services must adapt to this increased usage of OANs, including increasing pharmacist involvement in medication education, adherence and tolerability assessments, and proactive drug interaction monitoring.However, additional research is needed to determine optimal management strategies.

Our study aimed to compare OAN adherence among patients at a tertiary care VA hospital before and after implementation of a renewal clinic. The preimplementation population had a median MPR of 0.94 compared with 1.06 in the postimplementation group (P < .001). Although an ideal MPR is 1.0, we aimed for a slightly higher MPR to allow a supply buffer in the event of prescription delivery delays, as more than 90% of prescriptions are mailed to patients from a regional mail-order pharmacy. Importantly, the median MPRs do not adequately convey the impact from this clinic. The proportion of patients who were considered adherent to OANs increased from 47.9% in the preimplementation to 100% in the postimplementation period. These finding suggest that the clinical pharmacist role to assess and encourage adherence through monitoring tolerability of these OANs improved the overall medication taking experience of these patients.

Upon initial evaluation of adherence pre- and postimplementation, median adherence rates in both groups appeared to be above goal at 0.94 and 1.06 respectively. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5- to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer. After correcting for patients with confounding reasons for excess (dose reductions, breaks in treatment, etc.), the median MPR in the prerefill clinic group decreased to 0.9 and the MPR in the postrefill clinic group increased slightly to 1.08. Although the median adherence rate in both the pre- and postimplementation groups were above goal of 0.90, 36% of the patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) compared with no patients in the postimplementation group. Therefore, our intervention to improve patient adherence appeared to be beneficial at our institution.

In addition to improving adherence, one of the goals of the renewal clinic was to minimize excess supply at the time of therapy discontinuation. This was accomplished by aligning medication fills with medical visits and objective monitoring, as well as limiting supply to no more than 30 days. Of the patients in the postimplementation group, only 1 patient had remaining medication at the time of therapy discontinuation compared with 14 patients in the preimplementation group. The estimated cost savings from excess supply was $36,335. Limiting the amount of unused supply not only saves money for the patient and the institution, but also decreases opportunity for improper hazardous waste disposal and unnecessary exposure of hazardous materials to others.

Our results show the pharmacist intervention in the coordination of renewals improved adherence, minimized medication waste, and saved money. The cost of pharmacist time participating in the refill clinic was not calculated. Each visit was completed in approximately 5 minutes, with subsequent documentation and coordination taking an additional 5 to 10 minutes. During the launch of this service, the oncology pharmacy resident provided all coverage of the clinic. Oversite of the resident was provided by hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy specialists. We have continued to utilize pharmacy resident coverage since that time to meet education needs and keep the estimated cost per visit low. Another option in the case that pharmacy residents are not available would be utilization of a pharmacy technician, intern, or professional student to conduct the adherence and tolerability phone assessments. Our escalation protocol allows intervention by clinical pharmacy specialist and/or other health care providers when necessary. Trainees have only required basic training on how to use the protocol.

Limitations

Due to this study’s retrospective design, an inherent limitation is dependence on prescriber and refill records for documentation of initiation and discontinuation dates. Therefore, only the association of impact of pharmacist intervention on medication adherence can be determined as opposed to causation. We did not take into account discrepancies in day supply secondary to ‘held’ therapies, dose reductions, or doses supplied during an inpatient admission, which may alter estimates of MPR and cost-savings data. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5 to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer, thereby skewing MPR values. This study did not account for cost avoidance resulting from early identification and management of toxicity. Finally, the postimplementation data only spans 4 months and a longer duration of time is needed to more accurately determine sustainability of renewal clinic interventions and provide comprehensive evaluation of cost-avoidance.

Conclusion

Implementation of an OAN renewal clinic was associated with an increase in MPR, improved proportion of patients considered adherent, and an estimated $36,335 cost-savings. However, prospective evaluation and a longer study duration are needed to determine causality of improved adherence and cost-savings associated with a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic.

Adding andecaliximab (ADX) to first-line treatment with modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (mFOLFOX6) provided no survival benefit in patients with advanced HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in the phase 3 GAMMA-1 study.

Objective response rates were 50.5% in the ADX arm and 41.1% in the placebo arm (stratified odds ratio, 1.47; P = .049), but this did not translate to improved survival.

The median overall survival (OS) was 12.5 months in the ADX arm and 11.8 months in the placebo arm (stratified hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .56). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.5 months and 7.1 months, respectively (stratified HR, 0.84; P = .10).

Manish A. Shah, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The lack of improvement when ADX was added to mFOLFOX6 was despite encouraging antitumor activity seen with the combination in a phase 1 and phase 1b study, the authors noted.

“Despite compelling early-phase data, the addition of ADX did not improve outcomes in an unselected patient population,” the authors wrote. “Tissue or blood samples were not available for correlative analyses to understand why ADX was less active than expected or to identify any gastric cancer subset that may derive greater benefit with ADX.”

The researchers did note, however, that subgroup analyses suggested survival benefits with ADX in patients aged 65 years and older.
 

Study details

Participants in the double-blind GAMMA-1 trial were adults with confirmed locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. They were enrolled at 132 centers worldwide between Oct. 13, 2015, and May 15, 2019.

There were 432 patients randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 plus either 800 mg of ADX (n = 218) or placebo (n = 214) infused on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or intolerance.

As noted before, there was a significant improvement in response rate with the addition of ADX (P = .049) but no significant improvements in PFS (P = .10) or OS (P = .56).

On the other hand, subgroup analyses suggested survival benefits with ADX in patients aged 65 years and older. The authors said this result is intriguing and warrants further study.

Among patients aged 65 and older, the median OS was 13.9 months in the ADX arm and 10.5 months in the placebo arm (stratified HR, 0.64; P = .03). The median PFS was 8.7 months and 5.6 months, respectively (stratified HR, 0.50; P < .001). However, the P values were not adjusted for multiplicity.

No significant differences were seen between the groups with respect to safety outcomes. Serious adverse events occurred in 47.7% of patients in the ADX arm and 51.4% of those in the placebo arm. Nine patients in the ADX arm and 13 in the placebo arm discontinued the study because of adverse events.

The GAMMA-1 trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. The authors disclosed relationships with Gilead and many other companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Adding andecaliximab (ADX) to first-line treatment with modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (mFOLFOX6) provided no survival benefit in patients with advanced HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in the phase 3 GAMMA-1 study.

Objective response rates were 50.5% in the ADX arm and 41.1% in the placebo arm (stratified odds ratio, 1.47; P = .049), but this did not translate to improved survival.

The median overall survival (OS) was 12.5 months in the ADX arm and 11.8 months in the placebo arm (stratified hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .56). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.5 months and 7.1 months, respectively (stratified HR, 0.84; P = .10).

Manish A. Shah, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The lack of improvement when ADX was added to mFOLFOX6 was despite encouraging antitumor activity seen with the combination in a phase 1 and phase 1b study, the authors noted.

“Despite compelling early-phase data, the addition of ADX did not improve outcomes in an unselected patient population,” the authors wrote. “Tissue or blood samples were not available for correlative analyses to understand why ADX was less active than expected or to identify any gastric cancer subset that may derive greater benefit with ADX.”

The researchers did note, however, that subgroup analyses suggested survival benefits with ADX in patients aged 65 years and older.
 

Study details

Participants in the double-blind GAMMA-1 trial were adults with confirmed locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. They were enrolled at 132 centers worldwide between Oct. 13, 2015, and May 15, 2019.

There were 432 patients randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 plus either 800 mg of ADX (n = 218) or placebo (n = 214) infused on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or intolerance.

As noted before, there was a significant improvement in response rate with the addition of ADX (P = .049) but no significant improvements in PFS (P = .10) or OS (P = .56).

On the other hand, subgroup analyses suggested survival benefits with ADX in patients aged 65 years and older. The authors said this result is intriguing and warrants further study.

Among patients aged 65 and older, the median OS was 13.9 months in the ADX arm and 10.5 months in the placebo arm (stratified HR, 0.64; P = .03). The median PFS was 8.7 months and 5.6 months, respectively (stratified HR, 0.50; P < .001). However, the P values were not adjusted for multiplicity.

No significant differences were seen between the groups with respect to safety outcomes. Serious adverse events occurred in 47.7% of patients in the ADX arm and 51.4% of those in the placebo arm. Nine patients in the ADX arm and 13 in the placebo arm discontinued the study because of adverse events.

The GAMMA-1 trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. The authors disclosed relationships with Gilead and many other companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Adding andecaliximab (ADX) to first-line treatment with modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (mFOLFOX6) provided no survival benefit in patients with advanced HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in the phase 3 GAMMA-1 study.

Objective response rates were 50.5% in the ADX arm and 41.1% in the placebo arm (stratified odds ratio, 1.47; P = .049), but this did not translate to improved survival.

The median overall survival (OS) was 12.5 months in the ADX arm and 11.8 months in the placebo arm (stratified hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .56). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.5 months and 7.1 months, respectively (stratified HR, 0.84; P = .10).

Manish A. Shah, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The lack of improvement when ADX was added to mFOLFOX6 was despite encouraging antitumor activity seen with the combination in a phase 1 and phase 1b study, the authors noted.

“Despite compelling early-phase data, the addition of ADX did not improve outcomes in an unselected patient population,” the authors wrote. “Tissue or blood samples were not available for correlative analyses to understand why ADX was less active than expected or to identify any gastric cancer subset that may derive greater benefit with ADX.”

The researchers did note, however, that subgroup analyses suggested survival benefits with ADX in patients aged 65 years and older.
 

Study details

Participants in the double-blind GAMMA-1 trial were adults with confirmed locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. They were enrolled at 132 centers worldwide between Oct. 13, 2015, and May 15, 2019.

There were 432 patients randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 plus either 800 mg of ADX (n = 218) or placebo (n = 214) infused on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or intolerance.

As noted before, there was a significant improvement in response rate with the addition of ADX (P = .049) but no significant improvements in PFS (P = .10) or OS (P = .56).

On the other hand, subgroup analyses suggested survival benefits with ADX in patients aged 65 years and older. The authors said this result is intriguing and warrants further study.

Among patients aged 65 and older, the median OS was 13.9 months in the ADX arm and 10.5 months in the placebo arm (stratified HR, 0.64; P = .03). The median PFS was 8.7 months and 5.6 months, respectively (stratified HR, 0.50; P < .001). However, the P values were not adjusted for multiplicity.

No significant differences were seen between the groups with respect to safety outcomes. Serious adverse events occurred in 47.7% of patients in the ADX arm and 51.4% of those in the placebo arm. Nine patients in the ADX arm and 13 in the placebo arm discontinued the study because of adverse events.

The GAMMA-1 trial was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. The authors disclosed relationships with Gilead and many other companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Diagnosis of bleeding disorders in girls and women can lag behind diagnosis in boys and men by more than a decade, meaning needless delays in treatment and poor quality of life for many with hemophilia or related conditions.

“There is increasing awareness about issues faced by women and girls with inherited bleeding disorders, but disparities still exist both in both access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Roseline D’Oiron, MD, from Hôpital Bicêtre in Paris.

“Diagnosis, when it is made, is often made late, particularly in women. Indeed, a recent study from the European Hemophilia Consortium including more than 700 women with bleeding disorders showed that the median age at diagnosis was 16 years old,” she said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

She said that delayed diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls may be caused by a lack of knowledge by patients, families, and general practitioners about family history of bleeding disorders, abnormal bleeding events, and heavy menstrual bleeding. In addition, despite the frequency and severity of heavy bleeding events, patients, their families, and caregivers may underestimate the effect on the patient’s quality of life.
 

Disparities documented

Dr. D’Oiron pointed to several studies showing clear sex-based disparities in time to diagnosis. For example, a study published in Haemophilia showed that in 22 girls with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, the diagnosis of severe hemophilia was delayed by a median of 6.5 months compared with the diagnosis in boys, and a diagnosis of moderate hemophilia in girls was delayed by a median of 39 months.

In a second, single-center study comparing 44 women and girls with mild hemophilia (factor VIII or factor XI levels from 5 to 50 IU/dL) with 77 men and boys with mild hemophilia, the mean age at diagnosis was 31.63 years versus 19.18 years, respectively – a delay of 12.45 years.

A third study comparing 442 girls/women and 442 boys/men with mild hemophilia in France showed a difference of 6.07 years in diagnosis: the median age for girls/women at diagnosis was 16.91 years versus10.84 years for boys/men.
 

Why it matters

Dr. D’Oiron described the case of a patient named Clare, who first experienced, at age 8, 12 hours of bleeding following a dental procedure. At age 12.5, she began having heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss school for a few days each month, to be feel tired, and have poor-quality sleep.

Despite repeated bleeding episodes, severe anemia, and iron deficiency, her hemophilia was not suspected until after her 16th birthday, and a definitive diagnosis of hemophilia in both Clare and her mother was finally made when Clare was past 17, when a nonsense variant factor in F8, the gene encoding for factor VIII, was detected.

“For Clare, it took more the 8 years after the first bleeding symptoms, and nearly 4 years after presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding to recognize that she had a bleeding problem,” she said.

In total, Clare had about 450 days of heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss an estimated 140 days of school because of the delayed diagnosis and treatment.

“In my view, this is the main argument why it is urgent for these patients to achieve diagnosis early: this is to reduce the duration [of] a very poor quality of life,” Dr. D’Oiron said.
 

Barriers to diagnosis

Patients and families have reported difficulty distinguishing normal bleeding from abnormal symptoms, and girls may be reluctant to discuss their symptoms with their family or peers. In addition, primary care practitioners may not recognize the severity of the symptoms and therefore may not refer patients to hematologists for further workup.

These findings emphasize the need for improved tools to help patients differentiate between normal and abnormal bleeding, using symptom recognition–based language tools that can lead to early testing and application of accurate diagnostic tools, she said.

Standardization of definitions can help to improve screening and diagnosis, Dr. D’Oiron said, pointing to a recent study in Blood Advances proposing definitions for future research in von Willebrand disease.

For example, the authors of that study proposed a definition of heavy menstrual bleeding to include any of the following:

• Bleeding lasting 8 or more days
• Bleeding that consistently soaks through one or more sanitary protections every 2 hours on multiple days
• Requires use of more than one sanitary protection item at a time
• Requires changing sanitary protection during the night
• Is associated with repeat passing of blood clots
• Has a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score greater than 100.
•  

Problem and solutions

Answering the question posed in the title of her talk, Dr. D’Oiron said: “Yes, we do have a problem with the diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls, but we also have solutions.”

The solutions include family and patient outreach efforts; communication to improve awareness; inclusion of general practitioners in the circle of care; and early screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

A bleeding disorders specialist who was not involved in the study said that Dr. D’Oiron’s report closely reflects what she sees in the clinic.

“I do pediatrics, and usually what happens is that I see a teenager with heavy menstrual bleeding and we take her history, and we find out that Mom and multiple female family members have had horrible menstrual bleeding, possibly many of whom have had hysterectomies for it, and then diagnosing the parents and other family members after diagnosing the girl that we’re seeing” said Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“It is unfortunately a very real thing,” she added.

Reasons for the delay likely include lack of awareness of bleeding disorders.

“If you present to a hematologist, we think about bleeding disorders, but if you present to a primary care physician, they don’t always have that on their radar,” she said.

Additionally, a girl from a family with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding may just assume that what she is experiencing is “normal,” despite the serious affect it has on her quality of life, Dr. Flood said.

Dr. D’Oiron’s research is supported by her institution, the French Hemophilia Association, FranceCoag and Mhemon, the European Hemophilia Consortium, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. She reported advisory board or invited speaker activities for multiple companies. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Diagnosis of bleeding disorders in girls and women can lag behind diagnosis in boys and men by more than a decade, meaning needless delays in treatment and poor quality of life for many with hemophilia or related conditions.

“There is increasing awareness about issues faced by women and girls with inherited bleeding disorders, but disparities still exist both in both access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Roseline D’Oiron, MD, from Hôpital Bicêtre in Paris.

“Diagnosis, when it is made, is often made late, particularly in women. Indeed, a recent study from the European Hemophilia Consortium including more than 700 women with bleeding disorders showed that the median age at diagnosis was 16 years old,” she said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

She said that delayed diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls may be caused by a lack of knowledge by patients, families, and general practitioners about family history of bleeding disorders, abnormal bleeding events, and heavy menstrual bleeding. In addition, despite the frequency and severity of heavy bleeding events, patients, their families, and caregivers may underestimate the effect on the patient’s quality of life.
 

Disparities documented

Dr. D’Oiron pointed to several studies showing clear sex-based disparities in time to diagnosis. For example, a study published in Haemophilia showed that in 22 girls with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, the diagnosis of severe hemophilia was delayed by a median of 6.5 months compared with the diagnosis in boys, and a diagnosis of moderate hemophilia in girls was delayed by a median of 39 months.

In a second, single-center study comparing 44 women and girls with mild hemophilia (factor VIII or factor XI levels from 5 to 50 IU/dL) with 77 men and boys with mild hemophilia, the mean age at diagnosis was 31.63 years versus 19.18 years, respectively – a delay of 12.45 years.

A third study comparing 442 girls/women and 442 boys/men with mild hemophilia in France showed a difference of 6.07 years in diagnosis: the median age for girls/women at diagnosis was 16.91 years versus10.84 years for boys/men.
 

Why it matters

Dr. D’Oiron described the case of a patient named Clare, who first experienced, at age 8, 12 hours of bleeding following a dental procedure. At age 12.5, she began having heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss school for a few days each month, to be feel tired, and have poor-quality sleep.

Despite repeated bleeding episodes, severe anemia, and iron deficiency, her hemophilia was not suspected until after her 16th birthday, and a definitive diagnosis of hemophilia in both Clare and her mother was finally made when Clare was past 17, when a nonsense variant factor in F8, the gene encoding for factor VIII, was detected.

“For Clare, it took more the 8 years after the first bleeding symptoms, and nearly 4 years after presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding to recognize that she had a bleeding problem,” she said.

In total, Clare had about 450 days of heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss an estimated 140 days of school because of the delayed diagnosis and treatment.

“In my view, this is the main argument why it is urgent for these patients to achieve diagnosis early: this is to reduce the duration [of] a very poor quality of life,” Dr. D’Oiron said.
 

Barriers to diagnosis

Patients and families have reported difficulty distinguishing normal bleeding from abnormal symptoms, and girls may be reluctant to discuss their symptoms with their family or peers. In addition, primary care practitioners may not recognize the severity of the symptoms and therefore may not refer patients to hematologists for further workup.

These findings emphasize the need for improved tools to help patients differentiate between normal and abnormal bleeding, using symptom recognition–based language tools that can lead to early testing and application of accurate diagnostic tools, she said.

Standardization of definitions can help to improve screening and diagnosis, Dr. D’Oiron said, pointing to a recent study in Blood Advances proposing definitions for future research in von Willebrand disease.

For example, the authors of that study proposed a definition of heavy menstrual bleeding to include any of the following:

• Bleeding lasting 8 or more days
• Bleeding that consistently soaks through one or more sanitary protections every 2 hours on multiple days
• Requires use of more than one sanitary protection item at a time
• Requires changing sanitary protection during the night
• Is associated with repeat passing of blood clots
• Has a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score greater than 100.
•  

Problem and solutions

Answering the question posed in the title of her talk, Dr. D’Oiron said: “Yes, we do have a problem with the diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls, but we also have solutions.”

The solutions include family and patient outreach efforts; communication to improve awareness; inclusion of general practitioners in the circle of care; and early screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

A bleeding disorders specialist who was not involved in the study said that Dr. D’Oiron’s report closely reflects what she sees in the clinic.

“I do pediatrics, and usually what happens is that I see a teenager with heavy menstrual bleeding and we take her history, and we find out that Mom and multiple female family members have had horrible menstrual bleeding, possibly many of whom have had hysterectomies for it, and then diagnosing the parents and other family members after diagnosing the girl that we’re seeing” said Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“It is unfortunately a very real thing,” she added.

Reasons for the delay likely include lack of awareness of bleeding disorders.

“If you present to a hematologist, we think about bleeding disorders, but if you present to a primary care physician, they don’t always have that on their radar,” she said.

Additionally, a girl from a family with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding may just assume that what she is experiencing is “normal,” despite the serious affect it has on her quality of life, Dr. Flood said.

Dr. D’Oiron’s research is supported by her institution, the French Hemophilia Association, FranceCoag and Mhemon, the European Hemophilia Consortium, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. She reported advisory board or invited speaker activities for multiple companies. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Diagnosis of bleeding disorders in girls and women can lag behind diagnosis in boys and men by more than a decade, meaning needless delays in treatment and poor quality of life for many with hemophilia or related conditions.

“There is increasing awareness about issues faced by women and girls with inherited bleeding disorders, but disparities still exist both in both access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Roseline D’Oiron, MD, from Hôpital Bicêtre in Paris.

“Diagnosis, when it is made, is often made late, particularly in women. Indeed, a recent study from the European Hemophilia Consortium including more than 700 women with bleeding disorders showed that the median age at diagnosis was 16 years old,” she said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

She said that delayed diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls may be caused by a lack of knowledge by patients, families, and general practitioners about family history of bleeding disorders, abnormal bleeding events, and heavy menstrual bleeding. In addition, despite the frequency and severity of heavy bleeding events, patients, their families, and caregivers may underestimate the effect on the patient’s quality of life.
 

Disparities documented

Dr. D’Oiron pointed to several studies showing clear sex-based disparities in time to diagnosis. For example, a study published in Haemophilia showed that in 22 girls with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, the diagnosis of severe hemophilia was delayed by a median of 6.5 months compared with the diagnosis in boys, and a diagnosis of moderate hemophilia in girls was delayed by a median of 39 months.

In a second, single-center study comparing 44 women and girls with mild hemophilia (factor VIII or factor XI levels from 5 to 50 IU/dL) with 77 men and boys with mild hemophilia, the mean age at diagnosis was 31.63 years versus 19.18 years, respectively – a delay of 12.45 years.

A third study comparing 442 girls/women and 442 boys/men with mild hemophilia in France showed a difference of 6.07 years in diagnosis: the median age for girls/women at diagnosis was 16.91 years versus10.84 years for boys/men.
 

Why it matters

Dr. D’Oiron described the case of a patient named Clare, who first experienced, at age 8, 12 hours of bleeding following a dental procedure. At age 12.5, she began having heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss school for a few days each month, to be feel tired, and have poor-quality sleep.

Despite repeated bleeding episodes, severe anemia, and iron deficiency, her hemophilia was not suspected until after her 16th birthday, and a definitive diagnosis of hemophilia in both Clare and her mother was finally made when Clare was past 17, when a nonsense variant factor in F8, the gene encoding for factor VIII, was detected.

“For Clare, it took more the 8 years after the first bleeding symptoms, and nearly 4 years after presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding to recognize that she had a bleeding problem,” she said.

In total, Clare had about 450 days of heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss an estimated 140 days of school because of the delayed diagnosis and treatment.

“In my view, this is the main argument why it is urgent for these patients to achieve diagnosis early: this is to reduce the duration [of] a very poor quality of life,” Dr. D’Oiron said.
 

Barriers to diagnosis

Patients and families have reported difficulty distinguishing normal bleeding from abnormal symptoms, and girls may be reluctant to discuss their symptoms with their family or peers. In addition, primary care practitioners may not recognize the severity of the symptoms and therefore may not refer patients to hematologists for further workup.

These findings emphasize the need for improved tools to help patients differentiate between normal and abnormal bleeding, using symptom recognition–based language tools that can lead to early testing and application of accurate diagnostic tools, she said.

Standardization of definitions can help to improve screening and diagnosis, Dr. D’Oiron said, pointing to a recent study in Blood Advances proposing definitions for future research in von Willebrand disease.

For example, the authors of that study proposed a definition of heavy menstrual bleeding to include any of the following:

• Bleeding lasting 8 or more days
• Bleeding that consistently soaks through one or more sanitary protections every 2 hours on multiple days
• Requires use of more than one sanitary protection item at a time
• Requires changing sanitary protection during the night
• Is associated with repeat passing of blood clots
• Has a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score greater than 100.
•  

Problem and solutions

Answering the question posed in the title of her talk, Dr. D’Oiron said: “Yes, we do have a problem with the diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls, but we also have solutions.”

The solutions include family and patient outreach efforts; communication to improve awareness; inclusion of general practitioners in the circle of care; and early screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

A bleeding disorders specialist who was not involved in the study said that Dr. D’Oiron’s report closely reflects what she sees in the clinic.

“I do pediatrics, and usually what happens is that I see a teenager with heavy menstrual bleeding and we take her history, and we find out that Mom and multiple female family members have had horrible menstrual bleeding, possibly many of whom have had hysterectomies for it, and then diagnosing the parents and other family members after diagnosing the girl that we’re seeing” said Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“It is unfortunately a very real thing,” she added.

Reasons for the delay likely include lack of awareness of bleeding disorders.

“If you present to a hematologist, we think about bleeding disorders, but if you present to a primary care physician, they don’t always have that on their radar,” she said.

Additionally, a girl from a family with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding may just assume that what she is experiencing is “normal,” despite the serious affect it has on her quality of life, Dr. Flood said.

Dr. D’Oiron’s research is supported by her institution, the French Hemophilia Association, FranceCoag and Mhemon, the European Hemophilia Consortium, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. She reported advisory board or invited speaker activities for multiple companies. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

In the United States, breast cancer mortality rates dropped every year for women across all age groups between 1989 and 2010, but after that, the trend stalled for those younger than 40 years.

“It’s clear that mortality rates in women under 40 are no longer decreasing,” lead author R. Edward Hendrick, PhD, clinical professor from the department of radiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, stated in a press release. “I estimate that, in 2-3 years, the mortality rate will be increasing significantly in these women.”

These findings were published online Feb. 9, 2021, in Radiology.

The authors speculate that the findings may be related to recommendations for mammography screening.

For their study, the authors analyzed National Center for Health Statistics data for 1969-2017 and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

They found that breast cancer mortality rates decreased significantly by 1.5%-3.4% per year for all age groups from 1989 to 2010, and by 1.2%-2.2% per year after 2010 for those aged 40-79 years. However, the rates increased after 2010 by a nonsignificant 2.8% per year for women aged 20-29 years and 0.3% per year for those aged 30-39 years.

Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years.

“Our hope is that these findings focus more attention and research on breast cancer in younger women and what is behind this rapid increase in late-stage cancers,” Dr. Hendrick stated in the press release.

He and his colleagues speculate that the contrast between the upward trend in women aged younger than 40 years and the downward trend in older women highlights the value of mammography and may reflect the benefits of regular screening, which is not currently recommended for women younger than 40 who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

However, other groups, including the American College of Radiology and the Society for Breast Imaging, support starting annual mammograms at age 40 years.

An expert who was approached for comment noted that the incidence of breast cancer increases with age.

It is more common in women as they age, so screening recommendations do not include women aged younger than 40 years unless they are at very high risk for breast cancer, noted Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The majority of deaths due to breast cancer are in women over age 40. The breast cancer mortality rates per 100,000 as shown [in this study] are about 3 patients/100,000 for the under 40 age group, about 30/100,000 in the 40-69 age group, and about 80/100,000 in the 70 and above age group,” she pointed out.

Dr. Elmore was a coauthor of an editorial regarding the 2019 evidence-based guidance statement from the American College of Physicians . That guidance, which was endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended screening every other year for average-risk women aged 50-74 years, as reported by this news organization.

In their editorial, Dr. Elmore and coauthor Christoph Lee, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, applauded the ACP’s approach but stressed that the guidance is not a perfect product and does not “clearly illuminate the full path ahead for every woman.”

Breast cancer screening guidelines continue to evolve, they said, concluding that “physicians are left to use their best judgment based on available research and expert recommendations.”

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

In the United States, breast cancer mortality rates dropped every year for women across all age groups between 1989 and 2010, but after that, the trend stalled for those younger than 40 years.

“It’s clear that mortality rates in women under 40 are no longer decreasing,” lead author R. Edward Hendrick, PhD, clinical professor from the department of radiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, stated in a press release. “I estimate that, in 2-3 years, the mortality rate will be increasing significantly in these women.”

These findings were published online Feb. 9, 2021, in Radiology.

The authors speculate that the findings may be related to recommendations for mammography screening.

For their study, the authors analyzed National Center for Health Statistics data for 1969-2017 and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

They found that breast cancer mortality rates decreased significantly by 1.5%-3.4% per year for all age groups from 1989 to 2010, and by 1.2%-2.2% per year after 2010 for those aged 40-79 years. However, the rates increased after 2010 by a nonsignificant 2.8% per year for women aged 20-29 years and 0.3% per year for those aged 30-39 years.

Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years.

“Our hope is that these findings focus more attention and research on breast cancer in younger women and what is behind this rapid increase in late-stage cancers,” Dr. Hendrick stated in the press release.

He and his colleagues speculate that the contrast between the upward trend in women aged younger than 40 years and the downward trend in older women highlights the value of mammography and may reflect the benefits of regular screening, which is not currently recommended for women younger than 40 who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

However, other groups, including the American College of Radiology and the Society for Breast Imaging, support starting annual mammograms at age 40 years.

An expert who was approached for comment noted that the incidence of breast cancer increases with age.

It is more common in women as they age, so screening recommendations do not include women aged younger than 40 years unless they are at very high risk for breast cancer, noted Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The majority of deaths due to breast cancer are in women over age 40. The breast cancer mortality rates per 100,000 as shown [in this study] are about 3 patients/100,000 for the under 40 age group, about 30/100,000 in the 40-69 age group, and about 80/100,000 in the 70 and above age group,” she pointed out.

Dr. Elmore was a coauthor of an editorial regarding the 2019 evidence-based guidance statement from the American College of Physicians . That guidance, which was endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended screening every other year for average-risk women aged 50-74 years, as reported by this news organization.

In their editorial, Dr. Elmore and coauthor Christoph Lee, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, applauded the ACP’s approach but stressed that the guidance is not a perfect product and does not “clearly illuminate the full path ahead for every woman.”

Breast cancer screening guidelines continue to evolve, they said, concluding that “physicians are left to use their best judgment based on available research and expert recommendations.”

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

In the United States, breast cancer mortality rates dropped every year for women across all age groups between 1989 and 2010, but after that, the trend stalled for those younger than 40 years.

“It’s clear that mortality rates in women under 40 are no longer decreasing,” lead author R. Edward Hendrick, PhD, clinical professor from the department of radiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, stated in a press release. “I estimate that, in 2-3 years, the mortality rate will be increasing significantly in these women.”

These findings were published online Feb. 9, 2021, in Radiology.

The authors speculate that the findings may be related to recommendations for mammography screening.

For their study, the authors analyzed National Center for Health Statistics data for 1969-2017 and delay-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

They found that breast cancer mortality rates decreased significantly by 1.5%-3.4% per year for all age groups from 1989 to 2010, and by 1.2%-2.2% per year after 2010 for those aged 40-79 years. However, the rates increased after 2010 by a nonsignificant 2.8% per year for women aged 20-29 years and 0.3% per year for those aged 30-39 years.

Distant-stage breast cancer incidence rates increased by more than 4% per year after the year 2000 in women aged 20-39 years.

“Our hope is that these findings focus more attention and research on breast cancer in younger women and what is behind this rapid increase in late-stage cancers,” Dr. Hendrick stated in the press release.

He and his colleagues speculate that the contrast between the upward trend in women aged younger than 40 years and the downward trend in older women highlights the value of mammography and may reflect the benefits of regular screening, which is not currently recommended for women younger than 40 who are not at high risk for breast cancer.

However, other groups, including the American College of Radiology and the Society for Breast Imaging, support starting annual mammograms at age 40 years.

An expert who was approached for comment noted that the incidence of breast cancer increases with age.

It is more common in women as they age, so screening recommendations do not include women aged younger than 40 years unless they are at very high risk for breast cancer, noted Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The majority of deaths due to breast cancer are in women over age 40. The breast cancer mortality rates per 100,000 as shown [in this study] are about 3 patients/100,000 for the under 40 age group, about 30/100,000 in the 40-69 age group, and about 80/100,000 in the 70 and above age group,” she pointed out.

Dr. Elmore was a coauthor of an editorial regarding the 2019 evidence-based guidance statement from the American College of Physicians . That guidance, which was endorsed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommended screening every other year for average-risk women aged 50-74 years, as reported by this news organization.

In their editorial, Dr. Elmore and coauthor Christoph Lee, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, applauded the ACP’s approach but stressed that the guidance is not a perfect product and does not “clearly illuminate the full path ahead for every woman.”

Breast cancer screening guidelines continue to evolve, they said, concluding that “physicians are left to use their best judgment based on available research and expert recommendations.”

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