AVAHO

A new approach to breast screening proposes that all women should have a baseline evaluation of breast density by mammography at the age of 40.

The result would then be used to stratify further screening, with annual screening starting at age 40 for average-risk women who have dense breasts, and screening every 2 years starting at age 50 for women without dense breasts.

Such an approach would be cost effective and offers a more targeted risk-based strategy for the early detection of breast cancer when compared with current practices, say the authors, led by Tina Shih, PhD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Their modeling study was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, experts writing in an accompanying editorial are not persuaded. Karla Kerlikowske, MD, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, both from the University of California, San Francisco, point out that not all women with dense breasts are at increased risk for breast cancer. They caution against relying on breast density alone when determining screening strategies, and say age and other risk factors also need to be considered.
 

New approach proposed

Current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force suggest that women in their 40s can choose to undergo screening mammography based on their own personal preference, Dr. Shih explained in an interview.

However, these recommendations do not take into consideration the additional risk that breast density confers on breast cancer risk – and the only way women can know their breast density is to have a mammogram. “If you follow [current] guidelines, you would not know about your breast density until the age of 45 or 50,” she commented.

“But what if you knew about breast density earlier on and then acted on it –would that make a difference?” This was the question her team set out to explore.

For their study, the authors defined women with dense breasts as those with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category C (heterogeneously dense breasts) and category D (extremely dense breasts).

The team used a computer model to compare seven different breast screening strategies:

• No screening.
• Triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (T50).
• Biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and triennial. screening from age 50 to 75 for women without dense breasts at the age of 50 (SA50T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and biennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breast at age 50 (SA50B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 49, and triennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 40, and biennial mammography for women from age 50 to 75 without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40B50).

Compared with a no-screening strategy, the average number of mammography sessions through a woman’s lifetime would increase from seven mammograms per lifetime for the least frequent screening (T50) to 22 mammograms per lifetime for the most intensive screening schedule, the team reports.  

Compared with no screening, screening would reduce breast cancer deaths by 8.6 per 1,000 women (T50)–13.2 per 1,000 women (SA40B50).

A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the proposed new approach (SA40B50) yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), compared with the currently recommended biennial screening strategy. This is well within the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY that is generally accepted by society, the authors point out.

On the other hand, false-positive results and overdiagnosis would increase, the authors note.

The average number of false positives would increase from 141.2 per 1,000 women who underwent the least frequent triennial mammography screening schedule (T50) to 567.3 per 1,000 women with the new approach (SA40B50).  

Rates of overdiagnosis would also increase from a low of 12.5% to a high of 18.6%, they add.

“With this study, we are not saying that everybody should start screening at the age of 40. We’re just saying, do a baseline mammography at 40, know your breast density status, and then we can try to modify the screening schedule based on individual risk,” Dr. Shih emphasized.

“Compared with other screening strategies examined in our study, this strategy is associated with the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality and is cost effective, [although it] involves the most screening mammograms in a woman’s lifetime and higher rates of false-positive results and overdiagnosis,” the authors conclude.  
 

Fundamental problem with this approach 

The fundamental problem with this approach of stratifying risk on measurement of breast density – and on the basis of a single reading – is that not every woman with dense breasts is at increased risk for breast cancer, the editorialists comment.

Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo point out that, in fact, only about one-quarter of women with dense breasts are at high risk for a missed invasive cancer within 1 year of a negative mammogram, and these women can be identified by using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model.

“This observation means that most women with dense breasts can undergo biennial screening and need not consider annual screening or supplemental imaging,” the editorialists write.

“Thus, we caution against using breast density alone to determine if a woman is at elevated risk for breast cancer,” they emphasize.

An alternative option is to focus on overall risk to select screening strategies, they suggest. For example, most guidelines recommend screening from age 50 to 74, so identifying women in their 40s who have the same risk of a woman aged 50-59 is one way to determine who may benefit from earlier initiation of screening, the editorialists observe.

“Thus, women who have a first-degree relative with breast cancer or a history of breast biopsy could be offered screening in their 40s, and, if mammography shows dense breasts, they could continue biennial screening through their 40s,” the editorialists observe. “Such women with nondense breasts could resume biennial screening at age 50 years.”  

Dr. Shih told this news organization that she did not disagree with the editorialists’ suggestion that physicians could focus on overall breast cancer risk to select an appropriate screening strategy for individual patients.

“What we are suggesting is, ‘Let’s just do a baseline assessment at the age of 40 so women know their breast density instead of waiting until they are older,’ “ she said.

“But what the editorialists are suggesting is a strategy that could be even more cost effective,” she acknowledged. Dr. Shih also said that Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo’s estimate that only one-quarter of women with dense breasts are actually at high risk for breast cancer likely reflects their limitation of breast density to only those women with BI-RADs category “D” – extremely dense breasts.

Yet as Dr. Shih notes, women with category C and category D breast densities are both at higher risk for breast cancer, so ignoring women with lesser degrees of breast density still doesn’t address the fact that they have a higher-than-average risk for breast cancer.

“It’s getting harder to make universal screening strategies work as we are learning more and more about breast cancer, so people are starting to talk about screening strategies based on a patient’s risk classification,” Dr. Shih noted.

“It’ll be harder to implement these kinds of strategies, but it seems like the right way to go,” she added.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shih reports grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerlikowske is an unpaid consultant for GRAIL for the STRIVE study. Dr. Bibbins-Domingo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new approach to breast screening proposes that all women should have a baseline evaluation of breast density by mammography at the age of 40.

The result would then be used to stratify further screening, with annual screening starting at age 40 for average-risk women who have dense breasts, and screening every 2 years starting at age 50 for women without dense breasts.

Such an approach would be cost effective and offers a more targeted risk-based strategy for the early detection of breast cancer when compared with current practices, say the authors, led by Tina Shih, PhD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Their modeling study was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, experts writing in an accompanying editorial are not persuaded. Karla Kerlikowske, MD, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, both from the University of California, San Francisco, point out that not all women with dense breasts are at increased risk for breast cancer. They caution against relying on breast density alone when determining screening strategies, and say age and other risk factors also need to be considered.
 

New approach proposed

Current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force suggest that women in their 40s can choose to undergo screening mammography based on their own personal preference, Dr. Shih explained in an interview.

However, these recommendations do not take into consideration the additional risk that breast density confers on breast cancer risk – and the only way women can know their breast density is to have a mammogram. “If you follow [current] guidelines, you would not know about your breast density until the age of 45 or 50,” she commented.

“But what if you knew about breast density earlier on and then acted on it –would that make a difference?” This was the question her team set out to explore.

For their study, the authors defined women with dense breasts as those with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category C (heterogeneously dense breasts) and category D (extremely dense breasts).

The team used a computer model to compare seven different breast screening strategies:

• No screening.
• Triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (T50).
• Biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and triennial. screening from age 50 to 75 for women without dense breasts at the age of 50 (SA50T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and biennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breast at age 50 (SA50B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 49, and triennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 40, and biennial mammography for women from age 50 to 75 without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40B50).

Compared with a no-screening strategy, the average number of mammography sessions through a woman’s lifetime would increase from seven mammograms per lifetime for the least frequent screening (T50) to 22 mammograms per lifetime for the most intensive screening schedule, the team reports.  

Compared with no screening, screening would reduce breast cancer deaths by 8.6 per 1,000 women (T50)–13.2 per 1,000 women (SA40B50).

A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the proposed new approach (SA40B50) yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), compared with the currently recommended biennial screening strategy. This is well within the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY that is generally accepted by society, the authors point out.

On the other hand, false-positive results and overdiagnosis would increase, the authors note.

The average number of false positives would increase from 141.2 per 1,000 women who underwent the least frequent triennial mammography screening schedule (T50) to 567.3 per 1,000 women with the new approach (SA40B50).  

Rates of overdiagnosis would also increase from a low of 12.5% to a high of 18.6%, they add.

“With this study, we are not saying that everybody should start screening at the age of 40. We’re just saying, do a baseline mammography at 40, know your breast density status, and then we can try to modify the screening schedule based on individual risk,” Dr. Shih emphasized.

“Compared with other screening strategies examined in our study, this strategy is associated with the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality and is cost effective, [although it] involves the most screening mammograms in a woman’s lifetime and higher rates of false-positive results and overdiagnosis,” the authors conclude.  
 

Fundamental problem with this approach 

The fundamental problem with this approach of stratifying risk on measurement of breast density – and on the basis of a single reading – is that not every woman with dense breasts is at increased risk for breast cancer, the editorialists comment.

Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo point out that, in fact, only about one-quarter of women with dense breasts are at high risk for a missed invasive cancer within 1 year of a negative mammogram, and these women can be identified by using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model.

“This observation means that most women with dense breasts can undergo biennial screening and need not consider annual screening or supplemental imaging,” the editorialists write.

“Thus, we caution against using breast density alone to determine if a woman is at elevated risk for breast cancer,” they emphasize.

An alternative option is to focus on overall risk to select screening strategies, they suggest. For example, most guidelines recommend screening from age 50 to 74, so identifying women in their 40s who have the same risk of a woman aged 50-59 is one way to determine who may benefit from earlier initiation of screening, the editorialists observe.

“Thus, women who have a first-degree relative with breast cancer or a history of breast biopsy could be offered screening in their 40s, and, if mammography shows dense breasts, they could continue biennial screening through their 40s,” the editorialists observe. “Such women with nondense breasts could resume biennial screening at age 50 years.”  

Dr. Shih told this news organization that she did not disagree with the editorialists’ suggestion that physicians could focus on overall breast cancer risk to select an appropriate screening strategy for individual patients.

“What we are suggesting is, ‘Let’s just do a baseline assessment at the age of 40 so women know their breast density instead of waiting until they are older,’ “ she said.

“But what the editorialists are suggesting is a strategy that could be even more cost effective,” she acknowledged. Dr. Shih also said that Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo’s estimate that only one-quarter of women with dense breasts are actually at high risk for breast cancer likely reflects their limitation of breast density to only those women with BI-RADs category “D” – extremely dense breasts.

Yet as Dr. Shih notes, women with category C and category D breast densities are both at higher risk for breast cancer, so ignoring women with lesser degrees of breast density still doesn’t address the fact that they have a higher-than-average risk for breast cancer.

“It’s getting harder to make universal screening strategies work as we are learning more and more about breast cancer, so people are starting to talk about screening strategies based on a patient’s risk classification,” Dr. Shih noted.

“It’ll be harder to implement these kinds of strategies, but it seems like the right way to go,” she added.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shih reports grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerlikowske is an unpaid consultant for GRAIL for the STRIVE study. Dr. Bibbins-Domingo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new approach to breast screening proposes that all women should have a baseline evaluation of breast density by mammography at the age of 40.

The result would then be used to stratify further screening, with annual screening starting at age 40 for average-risk women who have dense breasts, and screening every 2 years starting at age 50 for women without dense breasts.

Such an approach would be cost effective and offers a more targeted risk-based strategy for the early detection of breast cancer when compared with current practices, say the authors, led by Tina Shih, PhD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Their modeling study was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, experts writing in an accompanying editorial are not persuaded. Karla Kerlikowske, MD, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, both from the University of California, San Francisco, point out that not all women with dense breasts are at increased risk for breast cancer. They caution against relying on breast density alone when determining screening strategies, and say age and other risk factors also need to be considered.
 

New approach proposed

Current recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task Force suggest that women in their 40s can choose to undergo screening mammography based on their own personal preference, Dr. Shih explained in an interview.

However, these recommendations do not take into consideration the additional risk that breast density confers on breast cancer risk – and the only way women can know their breast density is to have a mammogram. “If you follow [current] guidelines, you would not know about your breast density until the age of 45 or 50,” she commented.

“But what if you knew about breast density earlier on and then acted on it –would that make a difference?” This was the question her team set out to explore.

For their study, the authors defined women with dense breasts as those with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category C (heterogeneously dense breasts) and category D (extremely dense breasts).

The team used a computer model to compare seven different breast screening strategies:

• No screening.
• Triennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (T50).
• Biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years (B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and triennial. screening from age 50 to 75 for women without dense breasts at the age of 50 (SA50T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 50 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 50, and biennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breast at age 50 (SA50B50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 49, and triennial screening from age 50 to 75 for those without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40T50).
• Stratified annual mammography from age 40 to 75 for women with dense breasts at age 40, and biennial mammography for women from age 50 to 75 without dense breasts at age 40 (SA40B50).

Compared with a no-screening strategy, the average number of mammography sessions through a woman’s lifetime would increase from seven mammograms per lifetime for the least frequent screening (T50) to 22 mammograms per lifetime for the most intensive screening schedule, the team reports.  

Compared with no screening, screening would reduce breast cancer deaths by 8.6 per 1,000 women (T50)–13.2 per 1,000 women (SA40B50).

A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the proposed new approach (SA40B50) yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), compared with the currently recommended biennial screening strategy. This is well within the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY that is generally accepted by society, the authors point out.

On the other hand, false-positive results and overdiagnosis would increase, the authors note.

The average number of false positives would increase from 141.2 per 1,000 women who underwent the least frequent triennial mammography screening schedule (T50) to 567.3 per 1,000 women with the new approach (SA40B50).  

Rates of overdiagnosis would also increase from a low of 12.5% to a high of 18.6%, they add.

“With this study, we are not saying that everybody should start screening at the age of 40. We’re just saying, do a baseline mammography at 40, know your breast density status, and then we can try to modify the screening schedule based on individual risk,” Dr. Shih emphasized.

“Compared with other screening strategies examined in our study, this strategy is associated with the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality and is cost effective, [although it] involves the most screening mammograms in a woman’s lifetime and higher rates of false-positive results and overdiagnosis,” the authors conclude.  
 

Fundamental problem with this approach 

The fundamental problem with this approach of stratifying risk on measurement of breast density – and on the basis of a single reading – is that not every woman with dense breasts is at increased risk for breast cancer, the editorialists comment.

Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo point out that, in fact, only about one-quarter of women with dense breasts are at high risk for a missed invasive cancer within 1 year of a negative mammogram, and these women can be identified by using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model.

“This observation means that most women with dense breasts can undergo biennial screening and need not consider annual screening or supplemental imaging,” the editorialists write.

“Thus, we caution against using breast density alone to determine if a woman is at elevated risk for breast cancer,” they emphasize.

An alternative option is to focus on overall risk to select screening strategies, they suggest. For example, most guidelines recommend screening from age 50 to 74, so identifying women in their 40s who have the same risk of a woman aged 50-59 is one way to determine who may benefit from earlier initiation of screening, the editorialists observe.

“Thus, women who have a first-degree relative with breast cancer or a history of breast biopsy could be offered screening in their 40s, and, if mammography shows dense breasts, they could continue biennial screening through their 40s,” the editorialists observe. “Such women with nondense breasts could resume biennial screening at age 50 years.”  

Dr. Shih told this news organization that she did not disagree with the editorialists’ suggestion that physicians could focus on overall breast cancer risk to select an appropriate screening strategy for individual patients.

“What we are suggesting is, ‘Let’s just do a baseline assessment at the age of 40 so women know their breast density instead of waiting until they are older,’ “ she said.

“But what the editorialists are suggesting is a strategy that could be even more cost effective,” she acknowledged. Dr. Shih also said that Dr. Kerlikowske and Dr. Bibbins-Domingo’s estimate that only one-quarter of women with dense breasts are actually at high risk for breast cancer likely reflects their limitation of breast density to only those women with BI-RADs category “D” – extremely dense breasts.

Yet as Dr. Shih notes, women with category C and category D breast densities are both at higher risk for breast cancer, so ignoring women with lesser degrees of breast density still doesn’t address the fact that they have a higher-than-average risk for breast cancer.

“It’s getting harder to make universal screening strategies work as we are learning more and more about breast cancer, so people are starting to talk about screening strategies based on a patient’s risk classification,” Dr. Shih noted.

“It’ll be harder to implement these kinds of strategies, but it seems like the right way to go,” she added.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Shih reports grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerlikowske is an unpaid consultant for GRAIL for the STRIVE study. Dr. Bibbins-Domingo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The next dramatic advance in the treatment of melanoma may arise from highly promising clinical trials in which immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-BRAF/MEK agents are being pushed forward in the treatment paradigm and utilized as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with stage III resectable disease, John M. Kirkwood, MD, predicted at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by the Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

These agents have already demonstrated profound efficacy, first in stage IV metastatic disease and more recently as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma. Now, there is a great interest in learning whether by prescribing them preoperatively, patients might reduce their risk of advancing to metastatic disease. And neoadjuvant therapy offers an extremely attractive feature: It yields results in an accelerated fashion.

“The major problem with postoperative adjuvant trials in melanoma since 1984 is the long time to maturity. Many of us don’t want to wait the full 9 or 10 years for a full-bore, phase 3 adjuvant trial in stage III melanoma to mature,” explained Dr. Kirkwood, professor of medicine, dermatology, and translational science and coleader of the melanoma and skin cancer program at the University of Pittsburgh. “The opportunity to treat a patient who presents with a bulky lymph node, has a biopsy, and then can be treated for 3 or 6 weeks or sometimes even longer periods with a therapy that’s promising allows us to ask what’s going on in the tumor tissue, what’s going on in the clinical response at 3 or 6 weeks, and if there’s pathological complete or near-complete response under the microscope.”

Because pathological complete response is a strong predictor of relapse-free survival, this neoadjuvant-forward therapeutic strategy has the potential to provide patients and their physicians with an early forecast of likely clinical outcome only 4-6 weeks into treatment. Also, there is both preclinical and clinical evidence that neoadjuvant therapy may offer a survival advantage over adjuvant therapy, perhaps as a result of early treatment of micrometastatic disease. Another benefit of neoadjuvant therapy for melanoma is the resultant tumor shrinkage, which can permit less extensive surgery.

Dr. Kirkwood highlighted a phase 2 clinical trial conducted at the University of Pittsburgh to illustrate the potential of neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma. The ongoing single-arm study includes 32 patients with stage IIIB or IIIC resectable melanoma along with accessible tumor for biopsy and intratumoral injections of CMP-001, a toll-like receptor 9 agonist. According to the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual, stage IIIB melanoma has a 10-year mortality of 23%, and stage IIIC disease has 40%.

CMP-001 triggers type 1 interferon production through activation of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. The resultant inflammatory response draws T cells into the tumor to enhance the response to immunotherapy, which in this study was nivolumab (Opdivo), a human programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody. The neoadjuvant regimen consisted of seven once-weekly intratumoral injections of CMP-001, plus three 240-mg doses of nivolumab given at 2-week intervals. This was followed by resection, then 1 year of adjuvant therapy with nivolumab at 480 mg every 4 weeks and intratumoral CMP-001 every 4 weeks.

In an interim analysis, a major pathologic response occurred in an impressive 15 of 21 patients (71%) after 6 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy. Thirteen of the 15 had a pathologic complete response. Encouragingly, no one with a pathologic complete or near-complete response has relapsed to date.

“A pathologic complete response or near-complete response with neoadjuvant therapy appears to be a biomarker of durable disease control and is associated with excellent outcomes,” Dr. Kirkwood observed, adding that the Pittsburgh experience has been mirrored in reports from the Netherlands, Australia, and University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, involving other neoadjuvant agents.

Other potential early biomarkers of favorable outcome with neoadjuvant therapy include CD8+ T cells in the tumor at baseline, tumor mutational burden, T-cell clonality, and a T-cell–inflamed gene-expression profile.

There were no dose-limiting toxicities or delays in surgery related to the neoadjuvant treatment.

Of note, imaging often inaccurately showed only a partial response in patients who actually had a pathologic complete response, meaning totally devoid of tumor, Dr. Kirkwood said.

Corroboration of these findings is planned in the national multicenter ECOG-ACRIN neoadjuvant trial EA6194.

“Consider referring to this trial any patients who present with bulky nodal disease for whom a treatment assessment at 4-6 weeks is desired in order to predict what the outcome may be,” he suggested.

Dr. Kirkwood reported receiving research grants from Amgen, BMS, Castle Biosciences, Checkmate, Immunocore, Iovance, and Novartis and serving as a consultant to a handful of companies.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The next dramatic advance in the treatment of melanoma may arise from highly promising clinical trials in which immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-BRAF/MEK agents are being pushed forward in the treatment paradigm and utilized as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with stage III resectable disease, John M. Kirkwood, MD, predicted at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by the Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

These agents have already demonstrated profound efficacy, first in stage IV metastatic disease and more recently as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma. Now, there is a great interest in learning whether by prescribing them preoperatively, patients might reduce their risk of advancing to metastatic disease. And neoadjuvant therapy offers an extremely attractive feature: It yields results in an accelerated fashion.

“The major problem with postoperative adjuvant trials in melanoma since 1984 is the long time to maturity. Many of us don’t want to wait the full 9 or 10 years for a full-bore, phase 3 adjuvant trial in stage III melanoma to mature,” explained Dr. Kirkwood, professor of medicine, dermatology, and translational science and coleader of the melanoma and skin cancer program at the University of Pittsburgh. “The opportunity to treat a patient who presents with a bulky lymph node, has a biopsy, and then can be treated for 3 or 6 weeks or sometimes even longer periods with a therapy that’s promising allows us to ask what’s going on in the tumor tissue, what’s going on in the clinical response at 3 or 6 weeks, and if there’s pathological complete or near-complete response under the microscope.”

Because pathological complete response is a strong predictor of relapse-free survival, this neoadjuvant-forward therapeutic strategy has the potential to provide patients and their physicians with an early forecast of likely clinical outcome only 4-6 weeks into treatment. Also, there is both preclinical and clinical evidence that neoadjuvant therapy may offer a survival advantage over adjuvant therapy, perhaps as a result of early treatment of micrometastatic disease. Another benefit of neoadjuvant therapy for melanoma is the resultant tumor shrinkage, which can permit less extensive surgery.

Dr. Kirkwood highlighted a phase 2 clinical trial conducted at the University of Pittsburgh to illustrate the potential of neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma. The ongoing single-arm study includes 32 patients with stage IIIB or IIIC resectable melanoma along with accessible tumor for biopsy and intratumoral injections of CMP-001, a toll-like receptor 9 agonist. According to the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual, stage IIIB melanoma has a 10-year mortality of 23%, and stage IIIC disease has 40%.

CMP-001 triggers type 1 interferon production through activation of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. The resultant inflammatory response draws T cells into the tumor to enhance the response to immunotherapy, which in this study was nivolumab (Opdivo), a human programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody. The neoadjuvant regimen consisted of seven once-weekly intratumoral injections of CMP-001, plus three 240-mg doses of nivolumab given at 2-week intervals. This was followed by resection, then 1 year of adjuvant therapy with nivolumab at 480 mg every 4 weeks and intratumoral CMP-001 every 4 weeks.

In an interim analysis, a major pathologic response occurred in an impressive 15 of 21 patients (71%) after 6 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy. Thirteen of the 15 had a pathologic complete response. Encouragingly, no one with a pathologic complete or near-complete response has relapsed to date.

“A pathologic complete response or near-complete response with neoadjuvant therapy appears to be a biomarker of durable disease control and is associated with excellent outcomes,” Dr. Kirkwood observed, adding that the Pittsburgh experience has been mirrored in reports from the Netherlands, Australia, and University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, involving other neoadjuvant agents.

Other potential early biomarkers of favorable outcome with neoadjuvant therapy include CD8+ T cells in the tumor at baseline, tumor mutational burden, T-cell clonality, and a T-cell–inflamed gene-expression profile.

There were no dose-limiting toxicities or delays in surgery related to the neoadjuvant treatment.

Of note, imaging often inaccurately showed only a partial response in patients who actually had a pathologic complete response, meaning totally devoid of tumor, Dr. Kirkwood said.

Corroboration of these findings is planned in the national multicenter ECOG-ACRIN neoadjuvant trial EA6194.

“Consider referring to this trial any patients who present with bulky nodal disease for whom a treatment assessment at 4-6 weeks is desired in order to predict what the outcome may be,” he suggested.

Dr. Kirkwood reported receiving research grants from Amgen, BMS, Castle Biosciences, Checkmate, Immunocore, Iovance, and Novartis and serving as a consultant to a handful of companies.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The next dramatic advance in the treatment of melanoma may arise from highly promising clinical trials in which immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-BRAF/MEK agents are being pushed forward in the treatment paradigm and utilized as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with stage III resectable disease, John M. Kirkwood, MD, predicted at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by the Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

These agents have already demonstrated profound efficacy, first in stage IV metastatic disease and more recently as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma. Now, there is a great interest in learning whether by prescribing them preoperatively, patients might reduce their risk of advancing to metastatic disease. And neoadjuvant therapy offers an extremely attractive feature: It yields results in an accelerated fashion.

“The major problem with postoperative adjuvant trials in melanoma since 1984 is the long time to maturity. Many of us don’t want to wait the full 9 or 10 years for a full-bore, phase 3 adjuvant trial in stage III melanoma to mature,” explained Dr. Kirkwood, professor of medicine, dermatology, and translational science and coleader of the melanoma and skin cancer program at the University of Pittsburgh. “The opportunity to treat a patient who presents with a bulky lymph node, has a biopsy, and then can be treated for 3 or 6 weeks or sometimes even longer periods with a therapy that’s promising allows us to ask what’s going on in the tumor tissue, what’s going on in the clinical response at 3 or 6 weeks, and if there’s pathological complete or near-complete response under the microscope.”

Because pathological complete response is a strong predictor of relapse-free survival, this neoadjuvant-forward therapeutic strategy has the potential to provide patients and their physicians with an early forecast of likely clinical outcome only 4-6 weeks into treatment. Also, there is both preclinical and clinical evidence that neoadjuvant therapy may offer a survival advantage over adjuvant therapy, perhaps as a result of early treatment of micrometastatic disease. Another benefit of neoadjuvant therapy for melanoma is the resultant tumor shrinkage, which can permit less extensive surgery.

Dr. Kirkwood highlighted a phase 2 clinical trial conducted at the University of Pittsburgh to illustrate the potential of neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma. The ongoing single-arm study includes 32 patients with stage IIIB or IIIC resectable melanoma along with accessible tumor for biopsy and intratumoral injections of CMP-001, a toll-like receptor 9 agonist. According to the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual, stage IIIB melanoma has a 10-year mortality of 23%, and stage IIIC disease has 40%.

CMP-001 triggers type 1 interferon production through activation of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. The resultant inflammatory response draws T cells into the tumor to enhance the response to immunotherapy, which in this study was nivolumab (Opdivo), a human programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody. The neoadjuvant regimen consisted of seven once-weekly intratumoral injections of CMP-001, plus three 240-mg doses of nivolumab given at 2-week intervals. This was followed by resection, then 1 year of adjuvant therapy with nivolumab at 480 mg every 4 weeks and intratumoral CMP-001 every 4 weeks.

In an interim analysis, a major pathologic response occurred in an impressive 15 of 21 patients (71%) after 6 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy. Thirteen of the 15 had a pathologic complete response. Encouragingly, no one with a pathologic complete or near-complete response has relapsed to date.

“A pathologic complete response or near-complete response with neoadjuvant therapy appears to be a biomarker of durable disease control and is associated with excellent outcomes,” Dr. Kirkwood observed, adding that the Pittsburgh experience has been mirrored in reports from the Netherlands, Australia, and University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, involving other neoadjuvant agents.

Other potential early biomarkers of favorable outcome with neoadjuvant therapy include CD8+ T cells in the tumor at baseline, tumor mutational burden, T-cell clonality, and a T-cell–inflamed gene-expression profile.

There were no dose-limiting toxicities or delays in surgery related to the neoadjuvant treatment.

Of note, imaging often inaccurately showed only a partial response in patients who actually had a pathologic complete response, meaning totally devoid of tumor, Dr. Kirkwood said.

Corroboration of these findings is planned in the national multicenter ECOG-ACRIN neoadjuvant trial EA6194.

“Consider referring to this trial any patients who present with bulky nodal disease for whom a treatment assessment at 4-6 weeks is desired in order to predict what the outcome may be,” he suggested.

Dr. Kirkwood reported receiving research grants from Amgen, BMS, Castle Biosciences, Checkmate, Immunocore, Iovance, and Novartis and serving as a consultant to a handful of companies.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

New research suggests that proposed lung cancer screening guidelines could inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities, but adding in a risk prediction model could reduce some of these disparities by identifying people with high predicted benefit, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The draft United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2020 guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening for individuals aged 50-80 who currently smoke or quit in the last 15 years, and who have a smoking history equivalent to at least one pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years or more.

This expands the age range and smoking history requirement compared to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations in an attempt to partially ameliorate racial disparities in screening eligibility. The 2013 guidelines recommend screening ever-smokers aged 55-80 with 30 or more pack-years and 15 or fewer quit-years.

However, neither the 2013 nor the 2020 USPSTF recommendations consider the higher risk of lung cancer and younger ages at diagnosis among African Americans, despite their smoking less than Whites, according to Rebecca Landy, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“For the same age and smoking history as Whites, minorities have substantially different lung cancer risk,” Dr. Landy said. “Incorporating individualized prediction models into USPSTF guidelines may reduce racial/ethnic disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility.”

Dr. Landy and colleagues set out to test that theory, and she presented the results at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3564), which was rescheduled for January 2021. The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Study details

Dr. Landy and colleagues modeled the performance of National Lung Screening Trial–like screening (three annual CT screens, 5 years of follow-up) among three cohorts of ever-smokers aged 50-80 using the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

One group was eligible by USPSTF 2013 guidelines, another by draft USPSTF 2020 guidelines, and yet another by augmenting the USPSTF 2020 guidelines using risk prediction to include individuals with 12 or more days of life gained according to the Life-Years From Screening–CT (LYFS-CT) model.

“Among each race/ethnicity, we calculated the number eligible for screening, proportion of preventable lung cancer deaths prevented, proportion of gainable life-years gained, and screening effectiveness, as well as the relative disparities in lung cancer deaths prevented and life-years gained,” Dr. Landy said.
 

Results

Under the 2013 guidelines, 8 million ever-smokers were eligible. The disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity, compared to Whites, were 15% for African Americans, 15% for Asian Americans, and 24% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 15%, 13%, and 24%, respectively.

Under the 2020 draft guidelines, 14.5 million ever-smokers were eligible, but racial/ethnic disparities persisted. Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 13% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 27% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 16%, 19%, and 27%, respectively.

Using the LYFS-CT predictive-risk model added an additional 3.5 million people and “nearly eliminated” disparities for African Americans, Dr. Landy noted. However, disparities persisted for Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans.

Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 0% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 23% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 1%, 19%, and 24%, respectively.
 

More and widening disparity

The results showed that augmenting USPSTF criteria to include high-benefit people selected significantly more African Americans than Whites and could therefore reduce or even eliminate disparities between Whites and African Americans.

“The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations would make 6.5 million more people eligible to be screened, in addition to the 8 million from the 2013 criteria,” said Gerard Silvestri, MD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who was not involved in this study.

“But there will be more White people than African American people added, and the disparity between them may widen. Using the risk prediction model outlined in this well-researched study could close the gap in disparity. It’s important to identify individual risk and life expectancy.”

Dr. Silvestri pointed out that, compared to Whites, African Americans develop lung cancer at an earlier age with fewer pack-years history of smoking and have worse outcomes.

“We can’t just focus on one aspect of disparity,” he said. “African Americans are much less likely to be insured or to identify a primary care provider for integrated care. We know that screening works. The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations will enlarge the pool of eligible African Americans and reduce disparities if the other part of the equation holds; that is, they get access to care and screening.”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Dr. Landy and Dr. Silvestri have no disclosures.

New research suggests that proposed lung cancer screening guidelines could inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities, but adding in a risk prediction model could reduce some of these disparities by identifying people with high predicted benefit, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The draft United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2020 guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening for individuals aged 50-80 who currently smoke or quit in the last 15 years, and who have a smoking history equivalent to at least one pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years or more.

This expands the age range and smoking history requirement compared to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations in an attempt to partially ameliorate racial disparities in screening eligibility. The 2013 guidelines recommend screening ever-smokers aged 55-80 with 30 or more pack-years and 15 or fewer quit-years.

However, neither the 2013 nor the 2020 USPSTF recommendations consider the higher risk of lung cancer and younger ages at diagnosis among African Americans, despite their smoking less than Whites, according to Rebecca Landy, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“For the same age and smoking history as Whites, minorities have substantially different lung cancer risk,” Dr. Landy said. “Incorporating individualized prediction models into USPSTF guidelines may reduce racial/ethnic disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility.”

Dr. Landy and colleagues set out to test that theory, and she presented the results at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3564), which was rescheduled for January 2021. The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Study details

Dr. Landy and colleagues modeled the performance of National Lung Screening Trial–like screening (three annual CT screens, 5 years of follow-up) among three cohorts of ever-smokers aged 50-80 using the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

One group was eligible by USPSTF 2013 guidelines, another by draft USPSTF 2020 guidelines, and yet another by augmenting the USPSTF 2020 guidelines using risk prediction to include individuals with 12 or more days of life gained according to the Life-Years From Screening–CT (LYFS-CT) model.

“Among each race/ethnicity, we calculated the number eligible for screening, proportion of preventable lung cancer deaths prevented, proportion of gainable life-years gained, and screening effectiveness, as well as the relative disparities in lung cancer deaths prevented and life-years gained,” Dr. Landy said.
 

Results

Under the 2013 guidelines, 8 million ever-smokers were eligible. The disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity, compared to Whites, were 15% for African Americans, 15% for Asian Americans, and 24% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 15%, 13%, and 24%, respectively.

Under the 2020 draft guidelines, 14.5 million ever-smokers were eligible, but racial/ethnic disparities persisted. Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 13% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 27% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 16%, 19%, and 27%, respectively.

Using the LYFS-CT predictive-risk model added an additional 3.5 million people and “nearly eliminated” disparities for African Americans, Dr. Landy noted. However, disparities persisted for Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans.

Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 0% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 23% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 1%, 19%, and 24%, respectively.
 

More and widening disparity

The results showed that augmenting USPSTF criteria to include high-benefit people selected significantly more African Americans than Whites and could therefore reduce or even eliminate disparities between Whites and African Americans.

“The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations would make 6.5 million more people eligible to be screened, in addition to the 8 million from the 2013 criteria,” said Gerard Silvestri, MD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who was not involved in this study.

“But there will be more White people than African American people added, and the disparity between them may widen. Using the risk prediction model outlined in this well-researched study could close the gap in disparity. It’s important to identify individual risk and life expectancy.”

Dr. Silvestri pointed out that, compared to Whites, African Americans develop lung cancer at an earlier age with fewer pack-years history of smoking and have worse outcomes.

“We can’t just focus on one aspect of disparity,” he said. “African Americans are much less likely to be insured or to identify a primary care provider for integrated care. We know that screening works. The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations will enlarge the pool of eligible African Americans and reduce disparities if the other part of the equation holds; that is, they get access to care and screening.”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Dr. Landy and Dr. Silvestri have no disclosures.

New research suggests that proposed lung cancer screening guidelines could inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities, but adding in a risk prediction model could reduce some of these disparities by identifying people with high predicted benefit, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The draft United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2020 guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening for individuals aged 50-80 who currently smoke or quit in the last 15 years, and who have a smoking history equivalent to at least one pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years or more.

This expands the age range and smoking history requirement compared to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations in an attempt to partially ameliorate racial disparities in screening eligibility. The 2013 guidelines recommend screening ever-smokers aged 55-80 with 30 or more pack-years and 15 or fewer quit-years.

However, neither the 2013 nor the 2020 USPSTF recommendations consider the higher risk of lung cancer and younger ages at diagnosis among African Americans, despite their smoking less than Whites, according to Rebecca Landy, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“For the same age and smoking history as Whites, minorities have substantially different lung cancer risk,” Dr. Landy said. “Incorporating individualized prediction models into USPSTF guidelines may reduce racial/ethnic disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility.”

Dr. Landy and colleagues set out to test that theory, and she presented the results at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3564), which was rescheduled for January 2021. The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Study details

Dr. Landy and colleagues modeled the performance of National Lung Screening Trial–like screening (three annual CT screens, 5 years of follow-up) among three cohorts of ever-smokers aged 50-80 using the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

One group was eligible by USPSTF 2013 guidelines, another by draft USPSTF 2020 guidelines, and yet another by augmenting the USPSTF 2020 guidelines using risk prediction to include individuals with 12 or more days of life gained according to the Life-Years From Screening–CT (LYFS-CT) model.

“Among each race/ethnicity, we calculated the number eligible for screening, proportion of preventable lung cancer deaths prevented, proportion of gainable life-years gained, and screening effectiveness, as well as the relative disparities in lung cancer deaths prevented and life-years gained,” Dr. Landy said.
 

Results

Under the 2013 guidelines, 8 million ever-smokers were eligible. The disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity, compared to Whites, were 15% for African Americans, 15% for Asian Americans, and 24% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 15%, 13%, and 24%, respectively.

Under the 2020 draft guidelines, 14.5 million ever-smokers were eligible, but racial/ethnic disparities persisted. Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 13% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 27% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 16%, 19%, and 27%, respectively.

Using the LYFS-CT predictive-risk model added an additional 3.5 million people and “nearly eliminated” disparities for African Americans, Dr. Landy noted. However, disparities persisted for Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans.

Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 0% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 23% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 1%, 19%, and 24%, respectively.
 

More and widening disparity

The results showed that augmenting USPSTF criteria to include high-benefit people selected significantly more African Americans than Whites and could therefore reduce or even eliminate disparities between Whites and African Americans.

“The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations would make 6.5 million more people eligible to be screened, in addition to the 8 million from the 2013 criteria,” said Gerard Silvestri, MD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who was not involved in this study.

“But there will be more White people than African American people added, and the disparity between them may widen. Using the risk prediction model outlined in this well-researched study could close the gap in disparity. It’s important to identify individual risk and life expectancy.”

Dr. Silvestri pointed out that, compared to Whites, African Americans develop lung cancer at an earlier age with fewer pack-years history of smoking and have worse outcomes.

“We can’t just focus on one aspect of disparity,” he said. “African Americans are much less likely to be insured or to identify a primary care provider for integrated care. We know that screening works. The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations will enlarge the pool of eligible African Americans and reduce disparities if the other part of the equation holds; that is, they get access to care and screening.”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Dr. Landy and Dr. Silvestri have no disclosures.

Tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy based on the expression of two molecular markers did not confer a survival advantage in patients with completely resected stage II-III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial.

The patients were randomized to receive investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or treatment tailored according to messenger RNA (mRNA) expression of two molecular markers – excision repair cross complementation 1 (ERCC1) and thymidylate synthase (TS).

There was no significant difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival between the treatment approaches. However, toxicity was less common among patients who received customized treatment.

These results, from the phase 3 ITACA trial, were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 1820), which was rescheduled to January 2021.

“There is a clear need to define patients most likely to derive survival benefit from adjuvant therapy and spare patients who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy due to the toxicity of such therapy,” said presenter Silvia Novello, MD, PhD, of the University of Turin in Italy. “mRNA expression of different genes has been correlated with the sensitivity or resistance to specific anticancer agents.”

With this in mind, Dr. Novello and colleagues conducted the ITACA trial. The researchers’ primary goal was to determine whether an adjuvant pharmacogenomic-driven approach was able to improve overall survival in completely resected NSCLC.
 

Patients and treatment

The researchers randomized 773 NSCLC patients within 5-8 weeks after radical surgery. Genomic analyses were performed soon after surgery, and patients were randomly assigned to investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or to tailored treatments defined by mRNA levels of ERCC1 and TS.

Patients with high ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received single-agent docetaxel if their TS level was high or pemetrexed monotherapy if their TS level was low.

Patients with low ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received cisplatin-gemcitabine if their TS level was high or cisplatin-pemetrexed if their TS was low.

The most frequent doublets used in control patients were cisplatin-gemcitabine and cisplatin-vinorelbine.

The demographic characteristics of the 384 patients randomized to tailored therapy and the 389 control subjects were well-balanced, Dr. Novello said. Two-thirds of patients had stage II disease, 11% were never smokers, and the vast majority had a lobectomy as the resection method.
 

Results

At a median follow-up of 28.2 months, the median overall survival was 96.4 months in the tailored therapy arm and 83.5 months in the control arm. The median recurrence-free survival was 64.4 months and 41.5 months, respectively.

“Adjuvant chemotherapy customization based on the primary tumor tissue mRNA expression of ERCC1 and TS did not significantly improve overall survival or recurrence-free survival,” Dr. Novello said. “There was a non–statistically significant trend for overall survival favoring the customized arm.”

Dr. Novello noted that, when the final analysis was performed, the study was underpowered, as only 46% of expected events were collected. Assuming the same hazard ratio point estimate and that the expected 336 events were collected, the hazard ratio estimate would be 0.76 (P = .012).

Grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in 32.6% of patients in the tailored therapy arm and 45.9% of those in the control arm (P < .001).

“It is important to underline that the treatment customization significantly improved the toxicity profile without compromising the efficacy,” Dr. Novello said.

She added that “more comprehensive and high-throughput diagnostic techniques will be needed in order to tailor adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without immunotherapy, in completely resected NSCLC.”

“The ITACA study is the largest adjuvant study tailored to ERCC1/TS status, and the results have been long-awaited,” said Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, a professor at Kindai University in Japan and president of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This trial should be praised for the mandated genomic analysis that was accomplished within a reasonably short time frame before random assignment. In addition, this trial confirmed that there is no biomarker strong enough to predict the efficacy of cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, the concept of customizing adjuvant therapy according to the genomic status of patients’ tumors is valid, leading to the recent demonstration in the ADAURA study of the superiority of osimertinib in delaying the postoperative recurrence of disease in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.”

The ITACA study was funded by University of Turin and Eli Lilly. Dr. Novello disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bohringer Ingelheim, Beigene, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Sanofi. Dr. Mitsudomi disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Pfizer, Merck, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, ThermoFisher, Guardant, Eisai, Amgen, and Johnson & Johnson.

Tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy based on the expression of two molecular markers did not confer a survival advantage in patients with completely resected stage II-III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial.

The patients were randomized to receive investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or treatment tailored according to messenger RNA (mRNA) expression of two molecular markers – excision repair cross complementation 1 (ERCC1) and thymidylate synthase (TS).

There was no significant difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival between the treatment approaches. However, toxicity was less common among patients who received customized treatment.

These results, from the phase 3 ITACA trial, were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 1820), which was rescheduled to January 2021.

“There is a clear need to define patients most likely to derive survival benefit from adjuvant therapy and spare patients who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy due to the toxicity of such therapy,” said presenter Silvia Novello, MD, PhD, of the University of Turin in Italy. “mRNA expression of different genes has been correlated with the sensitivity or resistance to specific anticancer agents.”

With this in mind, Dr. Novello and colleagues conducted the ITACA trial. The researchers’ primary goal was to determine whether an adjuvant pharmacogenomic-driven approach was able to improve overall survival in completely resected NSCLC.
 

Patients and treatment

The researchers randomized 773 NSCLC patients within 5-8 weeks after radical surgery. Genomic analyses were performed soon after surgery, and patients were randomly assigned to investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or to tailored treatments defined by mRNA levels of ERCC1 and TS.

Patients with high ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received single-agent docetaxel if their TS level was high or pemetrexed monotherapy if their TS level was low.

Patients with low ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received cisplatin-gemcitabine if their TS level was high or cisplatin-pemetrexed if their TS was low.

The most frequent doublets used in control patients were cisplatin-gemcitabine and cisplatin-vinorelbine.

The demographic characteristics of the 384 patients randomized to tailored therapy and the 389 control subjects were well-balanced, Dr. Novello said. Two-thirds of patients had stage II disease, 11% were never smokers, and the vast majority had a lobectomy as the resection method.
 

Results

At a median follow-up of 28.2 months, the median overall survival was 96.4 months in the tailored therapy arm and 83.5 months in the control arm. The median recurrence-free survival was 64.4 months and 41.5 months, respectively.

“Adjuvant chemotherapy customization based on the primary tumor tissue mRNA expression of ERCC1 and TS did not significantly improve overall survival or recurrence-free survival,” Dr. Novello said. “There was a non–statistically significant trend for overall survival favoring the customized arm.”

Dr. Novello noted that, when the final analysis was performed, the study was underpowered, as only 46% of expected events were collected. Assuming the same hazard ratio point estimate and that the expected 336 events were collected, the hazard ratio estimate would be 0.76 (P = .012).

Grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in 32.6% of patients in the tailored therapy arm and 45.9% of those in the control arm (P < .001).

“It is important to underline that the treatment customization significantly improved the toxicity profile without compromising the efficacy,” Dr. Novello said.

She added that “more comprehensive and high-throughput diagnostic techniques will be needed in order to tailor adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without immunotherapy, in completely resected NSCLC.”

“The ITACA study is the largest adjuvant study tailored to ERCC1/TS status, and the results have been long-awaited,” said Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, a professor at Kindai University in Japan and president of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This trial should be praised for the mandated genomic analysis that was accomplished within a reasonably short time frame before random assignment. In addition, this trial confirmed that there is no biomarker strong enough to predict the efficacy of cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, the concept of customizing adjuvant therapy according to the genomic status of patients’ tumors is valid, leading to the recent demonstration in the ADAURA study of the superiority of osimertinib in delaying the postoperative recurrence of disease in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.”

The ITACA study was funded by University of Turin and Eli Lilly. Dr. Novello disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bohringer Ingelheim, Beigene, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Sanofi. Dr. Mitsudomi disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Pfizer, Merck, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, ThermoFisher, Guardant, Eisai, Amgen, and Johnson & Johnson.

Tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy based on the expression of two molecular markers did not confer a survival advantage in patients with completely resected stage II-III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial.

The patients were randomized to receive investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or treatment tailored according to messenger RNA (mRNA) expression of two molecular markers – excision repair cross complementation 1 (ERCC1) and thymidylate synthase (TS).

There was no significant difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival between the treatment approaches. However, toxicity was less common among patients who received customized treatment.

These results, from the phase 3 ITACA trial, were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 1820), which was rescheduled to January 2021.

“There is a clear need to define patients most likely to derive survival benefit from adjuvant therapy and spare patients who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy due to the toxicity of such therapy,” said presenter Silvia Novello, MD, PhD, of the University of Turin in Italy. “mRNA expression of different genes has been correlated with the sensitivity or resistance to specific anticancer agents.”

With this in mind, Dr. Novello and colleagues conducted the ITACA trial. The researchers’ primary goal was to determine whether an adjuvant pharmacogenomic-driven approach was able to improve overall survival in completely resected NSCLC.
 

Patients and treatment

The researchers randomized 773 NSCLC patients within 5-8 weeks after radical surgery. Genomic analyses were performed soon after surgery, and patients were randomly assigned to investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or to tailored treatments defined by mRNA levels of ERCC1 and TS.

Patients with high ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received single-agent docetaxel if their TS level was high or pemetrexed monotherapy if their TS level was low.

Patients with low ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received cisplatin-gemcitabine if their TS level was high or cisplatin-pemetrexed if their TS was low.

The most frequent doublets used in control patients were cisplatin-gemcitabine and cisplatin-vinorelbine.

The demographic characteristics of the 384 patients randomized to tailored therapy and the 389 control subjects were well-balanced, Dr. Novello said. Two-thirds of patients had stage II disease, 11% were never smokers, and the vast majority had a lobectomy as the resection method.
 

Results

At a median follow-up of 28.2 months, the median overall survival was 96.4 months in the tailored therapy arm and 83.5 months in the control arm. The median recurrence-free survival was 64.4 months and 41.5 months, respectively.

“Adjuvant chemotherapy customization based on the primary tumor tissue mRNA expression of ERCC1 and TS did not significantly improve overall survival or recurrence-free survival,” Dr. Novello said. “There was a non–statistically significant trend for overall survival favoring the customized arm.”

Dr. Novello noted that, when the final analysis was performed, the study was underpowered, as only 46% of expected events were collected. Assuming the same hazard ratio point estimate and that the expected 336 events were collected, the hazard ratio estimate would be 0.76 (P = .012).

Grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in 32.6% of patients in the tailored therapy arm and 45.9% of those in the control arm (P < .001).

“It is important to underline that the treatment customization significantly improved the toxicity profile without compromising the efficacy,” Dr. Novello said.

She added that “more comprehensive and high-throughput diagnostic techniques will be needed in order to tailor adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without immunotherapy, in completely resected NSCLC.”

“The ITACA study is the largest adjuvant study tailored to ERCC1/TS status, and the results have been long-awaited,” said Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, a professor at Kindai University in Japan and president of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This trial should be praised for the mandated genomic analysis that was accomplished within a reasonably short time frame before random assignment. In addition, this trial confirmed that there is no biomarker strong enough to predict the efficacy of cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, the concept of customizing adjuvant therapy according to the genomic status of patients’ tumors is valid, leading to the recent demonstration in the ADAURA study of the superiority of osimertinib in delaying the postoperative recurrence of disease in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.”

The ITACA study was funded by University of Turin and Eli Lilly. Dr. Novello disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bohringer Ingelheim, Beigene, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Sanofi. Dr. Mitsudomi disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Pfizer, Merck, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, ThermoFisher, Guardant, Eisai, Amgen, and Johnson & Johnson.

Concurrent cisplatin should remain the standard treatment over cetuximab for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to a large comparative phase 3 trial.

Based on the results of an interim analysis of the ARTSCAN III clinical trial, the independent safety data monitoring committee recommended early closure of the study because the results of the study suggest that cetuximab may be inferior to cisplatin.

“This study supports previous retrospective and prospective studies that suggest that concurrent cisplatin with radiation is superior to regimens with concurrent cetuximab in locally advanced head and neck cancers,” commented Sachin Jhawar, MD, MSCI, assistant professor in the department of radiation oncology at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “While the previous studies De-ESCALaTE HPV and RTOG 1016 were specific to HPV [human papillomavirus]-positive cancers, this study allowed non–virally mediated tumors, though the majority of cases were HPV related.”

The new study also used a lower-dose weekly regimen of cisplatin than the other two studies, noted Dr. Jhawar. Early trials used a cisplatin dose of 100 mg/m² every 3 weeks, but “the field is moving toward a dose of 40 mg/m² weekly, the dose use in the Swedish study. This study had an interesting second randomization of radiation dose-escalation for more advanced primary T stage tumors, but because the study ended early it is difficult to fully interpret those results.”

Swedish researchers, led by Maria Gebre-Medhin, MD, PhD, department of hematology, oncology, and radiation physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, performed an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase 3 study of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The patients received IV cetuximab 400 mg/m² 1 week before the start of radiation therapy followed by 250 mg/m² per week, or weekly IV cisplatin 40 mg/m² during radiation therapy.

The study results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study was prematurely closed after an unplanned interim analysis when 298 patients had been randomly assigned. The cumulative incidence of locoregional failures at 3 years was more than twice as high in the cetuximab group (23%), compared with the cisplatin group (9%; P = .0036). At 3 years, overall survival was higher in the cisplatin (88%) group than in the cetuximab group (78%), but the difference was not significant (P = .086). The cumulative incidence of distant failures did not differ between the treatment groups, and the toxicity burden was similar.

“Concurrent cisplatin led to improved locoregional control and event-free survival with a trend toward improved overall survival. The types of toxicity were different, as would be expected with the different drug mechanisms, but the rate of toxicity was not,” said Dr. Dr. Jhawar. “Interestingly, the benefit of cisplatin seemed to be limited to patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer. There was clinical equipoise in the p16-negative oropharyngeal cancer group and in the non–oropharyngeal cancer group. The numbers were small, but this is intriguing and suggests that there is more work to be done in this group of patients to tease out if we can escalate or use alternative therapy.”

Cisplatin has been repeatedly proven to be superior in selected populations. The next steps, said Dr. Jhawar, include defining “optimal regimens in cisplatin-ineligible populations based on age, performance status, kidney function, hearing loss, neuropathy, and HIV/AIDS; improvements with new targeted therapies and immunotherapies; and deescalation of systemic and/or radiation regimens in the best outcome groups, such as low-risk HPV-positive patients. And we are going to see more personalized medicine with genetic testing of tumors.”

When patients are ineligible for cisplatin, no optimal regimens have been defined as yet. At Ohio State, Dr. Jhawar and colleagues use carboplatin therapy.

For practicing oncologists, Dr. Jhawar said the bottom line is “patients who are eligible should receive concurrent cisplatin therapy for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer.”

The ARTSCAN III study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Mrs. Berta Kamprad Cancer Foundation. One of the study’s coauthors reported a leadership role in ScandiDos. The other authors reported they had no conflicts. Dr. Jhawar reported he had no conflicts of interest.




 

Concurrent cisplatin should remain the standard treatment over cetuximab for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to a large comparative phase 3 trial.

Based on the results of an interim analysis of the ARTSCAN III clinical trial, the independent safety data monitoring committee recommended early closure of the study because the results of the study suggest that cetuximab may be inferior to cisplatin.

“This study supports previous retrospective and prospective studies that suggest that concurrent cisplatin with radiation is superior to regimens with concurrent cetuximab in locally advanced head and neck cancers,” commented Sachin Jhawar, MD, MSCI, assistant professor in the department of radiation oncology at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “While the previous studies De-ESCALaTE HPV and RTOG 1016 were specific to HPV [human papillomavirus]-positive cancers, this study allowed non–virally mediated tumors, though the majority of cases were HPV related.”

The new study also used a lower-dose weekly regimen of cisplatin than the other two studies, noted Dr. Jhawar. Early trials used a cisplatin dose of 100 mg/m² every 3 weeks, but “the field is moving toward a dose of 40 mg/m² weekly, the dose use in the Swedish study. This study had an interesting second randomization of radiation dose-escalation for more advanced primary T stage tumors, but because the study ended early it is difficult to fully interpret those results.”

Swedish researchers, led by Maria Gebre-Medhin, MD, PhD, department of hematology, oncology, and radiation physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, performed an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase 3 study of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The patients received IV cetuximab 400 mg/m² 1 week before the start of radiation therapy followed by 250 mg/m² per week, or weekly IV cisplatin 40 mg/m² during radiation therapy.

The study results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study was prematurely closed after an unplanned interim analysis when 298 patients had been randomly assigned. The cumulative incidence of locoregional failures at 3 years was more than twice as high in the cetuximab group (23%), compared with the cisplatin group (9%; P = .0036). At 3 years, overall survival was higher in the cisplatin (88%) group than in the cetuximab group (78%), but the difference was not significant (P = .086). The cumulative incidence of distant failures did not differ between the treatment groups, and the toxicity burden was similar.

“Concurrent cisplatin led to improved locoregional control and event-free survival with a trend toward improved overall survival. The types of toxicity were different, as would be expected with the different drug mechanisms, but the rate of toxicity was not,” said Dr. Dr. Jhawar. “Interestingly, the benefit of cisplatin seemed to be limited to patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer. There was clinical equipoise in the p16-negative oropharyngeal cancer group and in the non–oropharyngeal cancer group. The numbers were small, but this is intriguing and suggests that there is more work to be done in this group of patients to tease out if we can escalate or use alternative therapy.”

Cisplatin has been repeatedly proven to be superior in selected populations. The next steps, said Dr. Jhawar, include defining “optimal regimens in cisplatin-ineligible populations based on age, performance status, kidney function, hearing loss, neuropathy, and HIV/AIDS; improvements with new targeted therapies and immunotherapies; and deescalation of systemic and/or radiation regimens in the best outcome groups, such as low-risk HPV-positive patients. And we are going to see more personalized medicine with genetic testing of tumors.”

When patients are ineligible for cisplatin, no optimal regimens have been defined as yet. At Ohio State, Dr. Jhawar and colleagues use carboplatin therapy.

For practicing oncologists, Dr. Jhawar said the bottom line is “patients who are eligible should receive concurrent cisplatin therapy for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer.”

The ARTSCAN III study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Mrs. Berta Kamprad Cancer Foundation. One of the study’s coauthors reported a leadership role in ScandiDos. The other authors reported they had no conflicts. Dr. Jhawar reported he had no conflicts of interest.




 

Concurrent cisplatin should remain the standard treatment over cetuximab for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to a large comparative phase 3 trial.

Based on the results of an interim analysis of the ARTSCAN III clinical trial, the independent safety data monitoring committee recommended early closure of the study because the results of the study suggest that cetuximab may be inferior to cisplatin.

“This study supports previous retrospective and prospective studies that suggest that concurrent cisplatin with radiation is superior to regimens with concurrent cetuximab in locally advanced head and neck cancers,” commented Sachin Jhawar, MD, MSCI, assistant professor in the department of radiation oncology at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “While the previous studies De-ESCALaTE HPV and RTOG 1016 were specific to HPV [human papillomavirus]-positive cancers, this study allowed non–virally mediated tumors, though the majority of cases were HPV related.”

The new study also used a lower-dose weekly regimen of cisplatin than the other two studies, noted Dr. Jhawar. Early trials used a cisplatin dose of 100 mg/m² every 3 weeks, but “the field is moving toward a dose of 40 mg/m² weekly, the dose use in the Swedish study. This study had an interesting second randomization of radiation dose-escalation for more advanced primary T stage tumors, but because the study ended early it is difficult to fully interpret those results.”

Swedish researchers, led by Maria Gebre-Medhin, MD, PhD, department of hematology, oncology, and radiation physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, performed an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase 3 study of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The patients received IV cetuximab 400 mg/m² 1 week before the start of radiation therapy followed by 250 mg/m² per week, or weekly IV cisplatin 40 mg/m² during radiation therapy.

The study results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study was prematurely closed after an unplanned interim analysis when 298 patients had been randomly assigned. The cumulative incidence of locoregional failures at 3 years was more than twice as high in the cetuximab group (23%), compared with the cisplatin group (9%; P = .0036). At 3 years, overall survival was higher in the cisplatin (88%) group than in the cetuximab group (78%), but the difference was not significant (P = .086). The cumulative incidence of distant failures did not differ between the treatment groups, and the toxicity burden was similar.

“Concurrent cisplatin led to improved locoregional control and event-free survival with a trend toward improved overall survival. The types of toxicity were different, as would be expected with the different drug mechanisms, but the rate of toxicity was not,” said Dr. Dr. Jhawar. “Interestingly, the benefit of cisplatin seemed to be limited to patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer. There was clinical equipoise in the p16-negative oropharyngeal cancer group and in the non–oropharyngeal cancer group. The numbers were small, but this is intriguing and suggests that there is more work to be done in this group of patients to tease out if we can escalate or use alternative therapy.”

Cisplatin has been repeatedly proven to be superior in selected populations. The next steps, said Dr. Jhawar, include defining “optimal regimens in cisplatin-ineligible populations based on age, performance status, kidney function, hearing loss, neuropathy, and HIV/AIDS; improvements with new targeted therapies and immunotherapies; and deescalation of systemic and/or radiation regimens in the best outcome groups, such as low-risk HPV-positive patients. And we are going to see more personalized medicine with genetic testing of tumors.”

When patients are ineligible for cisplatin, no optimal regimens have been defined as yet. At Ohio State, Dr. Jhawar and colleagues use carboplatin therapy.

For practicing oncologists, Dr. Jhawar said the bottom line is “patients who are eligible should receive concurrent cisplatin therapy for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer.”

The ARTSCAN III study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Mrs. Berta Kamprad Cancer Foundation. One of the study’s coauthors reported a leadership role in ScandiDos. The other authors reported they had no conflicts. Dr. Jhawar reported he had no conflicts of interest.




 

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab prior to lung cancer surgery was well tolerated by patients with stage IB-IIIB lung cancer and produced a 21% major pathologic response rate, according to the primary analysis of the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) 3 study.

Small pilot studies previously suggested that preoperative immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may benefit patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The LCMC3 study is “unique” because it is the largest monotherapy trial of checkpoint inhibition in resectable NSCLC, and it’s “a landmark study” because it validated results from smaller trials and can serve as a benchmark for future ones, said Jay M. Lee, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee presented results from LCMC3 at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract PS01.05), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The study included 181 patients, median age 65 years, with stage IB-IIIB NSCLC. The vast majority (90%) of patients were current/former smokers, and two-thirds had a nonsquamous histology. Patients were categorized in the following stages: 17 patients were staged at IB, 20 were IIA, 55 were IIB, 72 were IIIA, and 17 were IIIB.

Patients received 1,200 mg of neoadjuvant atezolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles followed by resection between 30 and 50 days from the first cycle. Patients who benefited from the therapy continued adjuvant atezolizumab for 12 months.

The primary endpoint was major pathological response, defined as no more than 10% viable tumor cells at surgery, in patients without epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations.
 

Results

Following atezolizumab treatment, 43% of patients were down-staged, and 19% were up-staged. Some degree of pathological regression was observed in all but 3 of the 159 patients who underwent resection.

Among the 144 patients included in the efficacy analysis, the major pathological response rate was 21%, with 7% of patients achieving a complete pathological response.

“We demonstrated that more than half of patients resected with a minimally invasive operation. Remarkably, only 15% required thoracotomy. The 92% complete resection rate is comparable, if not superior to, preoperative chemotherapy trials,” Dr. Lee said.

The majority (88%) of patients underwent surgical resection within a 20-day protocol window. The median time from end of neoadjuvant therapy to surgery was 22 days.

“Historically, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy window is much later for surgery, 3 weeks from neoadjuvant therapy, and that can be stretched to up to 56 days,” Dr. Lee said.

In an exploratory analysis, the 1.5-year overall survival rate was 91% for stage I and II disease and 87% for stage III disease. The survival in both cohorts was superior to that expected historically, Dr. Lee noted.

Intraoperative complications were rare (3%). Postoperative adverse reactions correlated with fewer viable tumor cells in the resected specimen.

One patient died following surgery after the first 30 days, which was deemed unrelated to treatment. Another patient died between 30 and 90 days from treatment-related pneumonitis.

“The LCMC3 study successfully met its primary endpoint of achieving major pathological response,” Dr. Lee concluded. “Neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy was well tolerated, and resection was performed with low perioperative morbidity and mortality, usually within a narrow protocol window and with a short time frame from completion of atezolizumab and with a correspondingly high complete resection rate.”

The study’s results suggest that “neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy is effective, well tolerated, and surgically acceptable,” said study discussant Shinichi Toyooka, MD, of Okayama (Japan) University Hospital.

“I would consider single-agent ICI neoadjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage disease and poor performance status, and an ICI plus chemotherapy for more advanced resectable cases, like locally advanced disease,” Dr. Toyooka said.

The LCMC3 study is sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Lee disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Toyooka disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Chugai, Taiho Pharmaceutical Group, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab prior to lung cancer surgery was well tolerated by patients with stage IB-IIIB lung cancer and produced a 21% major pathologic response rate, according to the primary analysis of the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) 3 study.

Small pilot studies previously suggested that preoperative immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may benefit patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The LCMC3 study is “unique” because it is the largest monotherapy trial of checkpoint inhibition in resectable NSCLC, and it’s “a landmark study” because it validated results from smaller trials and can serve as a benchmark for future ones, said Jay M. Lee, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee presented results from LCMC3 at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract PS01.05), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The study included 181 patients, median age 65 years, with stage IB-IIIB NSCLC. The vast majority (90%) of patients were current/former smokers, and two-thirds had a nonsquamous histology. Patients were categorized in the following stages: 17 patients were staged at IB, 20 were IIA, 55 were IIB, 72 were IIIA, and 17 were IIIB.

Patients received 1,200 mg of neoadjuvant atezolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles followed by resection between 30 and 50 days from the first cycle. Patients who benefited from the therapy continued adjuvant atezolizumab for 12 months.

The primary endpoint was major pathological response, defined as no more than 10% viable tumor cells at surgery, in patients without epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations.
 

Results

Following atezolizumab treatment, 43% of patients were down-staged, and 19% were up-staged. Some degree of pathological regression was observed in all but 3 of the 159 patients who underwent resection.

Among the 144 patients included in the efficacy analysis, the major pathological response rate was 21%, with 7% of patients achieving a complete pathological response.

“We demonstrated that more than half of patients resected with a minimally invasive operation. Remarkably, only 15% required thoracotomy. The 92% complete resection rate is comparable, if not superior to, preoperative chemotherapy trials,” Dr. Lee said.

The majority (88%) of patients underwent surgical resection within a 20-day protocol window. The median time from end of neoadjuvant therapy to surgery was 22 days.

“Historically, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy window is much later for surgery, 3 weeks from neoadjuvant therapy, and that can be stretched to up to 56 days,” Dr. Lee said.

In an exploratory analysis, the 1.5-year overall survival rate was 91% for stage I and II disease and 87% for stage III disease. The survival in both cohorts was superior to that expected historically, Dr. Lee noted.

Intraoperative complications were rare (3%). Postoperative adverse reactions correlated with fewer viable tumor cells in the resected specimen.

One patient died following surgery after the first 30 days, which was deemed unrelated to treatment. Another patient died between 30 and 90 days from treatment-related pneumonitis.

“The LCMC3 study successfully met its primary endpoint of achieving major pathological response,” Dr. Lee concluded. “Neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy was well tolerated, and resection was performed with low perioperative morbidity and mortality, usually within a narrow protocol window and with a short time frame from completion of atezolizumab and with a correspondingly high complete resection rate.”

The study’s results suggest that “neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy is effective, well tolerated, and surgically acceptable,” said study discussant Shinichi Toyooka, MD, of Okayama (Japan) University Hospital.

“I would consider single-agent ICI neoadjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage disease and poor performance status, and an ICI plus chemotherapy for more advanced resectable cases, like locally advanced disease,” Dr. Toyooka said.

The LCMC3 study is sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Lee disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Toyooka disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Chugai, Taiho Pharmaceutical Group, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab prior to lung cancer surgery was well tolerated by patients with stage IB-IIIB lung cancer and produced a 21% major pathologic response rate, according to the primary analysis of the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) 3 study.

Small pilot studies previously suggested that preoperative immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may benefit patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The LCMC3 study is “unique” because it is the largest monotherapy trial of checkpoint inhibition in resectable NSCLC, and it’s “a landmark study” because it validated results from smaller trials and can serve as a benchmark for future ones, said Jay M. Lee, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee presented results from LCMC3 at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract PS01.05), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The study included 181 patients, median age 65 years, with stage IB-IIIB NSCLC. The vast majority (90%) of patients were current/former smokers, and two-thirds had a nonsquamous histology. Patients were categorized in the following stages: 17 patients were staged at IB, 20 were IIA, 55 were IIB, 72 were IIIA, and 17 were IIIB.

Patients received 1,200 mg of neoadjuvant atezolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles followed by resection between 30 and 50 days from the first cycle. Patients who benefited from the therapy continued adjuvant atezolizumab for 12 months.

The primary endpoint was major pathological response, defined as no more than 10% viable tumor cells at surgery, in patients without epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations.
 

Results

Following atezolizumab treatment, 43% of patients were down-staged, and 19% were up-staged. Some degree of pathological regression was observed in all but 3 of the 159 patients who underwent resection.

Among the 144 patients included in the efficacy analysis, the major pathological response rate was 21%, with 7% of patients achieving a complete pathological response.

“We demonstrated that more than half of patients resected with a minimally invasive operation. Remarkably, only 15% required thoracotomy. The 92% complete resection rate is comparable, if not superior to, preoperative chemotherapy trials,” Dr. Lee said.

The majority (88%) of patients underwent surgical resection within a 20-day protocol window. The median time from end of neoadjuvant therapy to surgery was 22 days.

“Historically, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy window is much later for surgery, 3 weeks from neoadjuvant therapy, and that can be stretched to up to 56 days,” Dr. Lee said.

In an exploratory analysis, the 1.5-year overall survival rate was 91% for stage I and II disease and 87% for stage III disease. The survival in both cohorts was superior to that expected historically, Dr. Lee noted.

Intraoperative complications were rare (3%). Postoperative adverse reactions correlated with fewer viable tumor cells in the resected specimen.

One patient died following surgery after the first 30 days, which was deemed unrelated to treatment. Another patient died between 30 and 90 days from treatment-related pneumonitis.

“The LCMC3 study successfully met its primary endpoint of achieving major pathological response,” Dr. Lee concluded. “Neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy was well tolerated, and resection was performed with low perioperative morbidity and mortality, usually within a narrow protocol window and with a short time frame from completion of atezolizumab and with a correspondingly high complete resection rate.”

The study’s results suggest that “neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy is effective, well tolerated, and surgically acceptable,” said study discussant Shinichi Toyooka, MD, of Okayama (Japan) University Hospital.

“I would consider single-agent ICI neoadjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage disease and poor performance status, and an ICI plus chemotherapy for more advanced resectable cases, like locally advanced disease,” Dr. Toyooka said.

The LCMC3 study is sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Lee disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Toyooka disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Chugai, Taiho Pharmaceutical Group, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product for the treatment of adults with certain types of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who relapse or fail to respond to at least two systemic treatments.

The new approval comes with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) because of the risk for serious adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The product, from Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol Myers Squibb company, is the third gene therapy to receive FDA approval for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults, accounting for about a third of the approximately 77,000 cases diagnosed each year in the United States.

The FDA previously granted Breyanzi orphan drug, regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT), and breakthrough therapy designations. The product is the first therapy with an RMAT designation to be licensed by the agency.

The new approval is based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in a pivotal phase 1 trial of more than 250 adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The complete remission rate after treatment with Breyanzi was 54%. 

“Treatment with Breyanzi has the potential to cause severe side effects. The labeling carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which is a systemic response to the activation and proliferation of CAR T cells, causing high fever and flu-like symptoms and neurologic toxicities,” the FDA explained. “Both CRS and neurological events can be life-threatening.”

Other side effects, which typically present within 1-2 weeks after treatment, include hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, low blood cell counts, and a weakened immune system, but some side effects may occur later.

The REMS requires special certification for facilities that dispense the product and “specifies that patients be informed of the signs and symptoms of CRS and neurological toxicities following infusion – and of the importance of promptly returning to the treatment site if they develop fever or other adverse reactions after receiving treatment with Breyanzi,” the FDA noted.

Breyanzi is not indicated for patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma, the FDA noted.

Facility certification involves training to recognize and manage the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicities.

A postmarketing study to further evaluate the long-term safety will also be required.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product for the treatment of adults with certain types of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who relapse or fail to respond to at least two systemic treatments.

The new approval comes with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) because of the risk for serious adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The product, from Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol Myers Squibb company, is the third gene therapy to receive FDA approval for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults, accounting for about a third of the approximately 77,000 cases diagnosed each year in the United States.

The FDA previously granted Breyanzi orphan drug, regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT), and breakthrough therapy designations. The product is the first therapy with an RMAT designation to be licensed by the agency.

The new approval is based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in a pivotal phase 1 trial of more than 250 adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The complete remission rate after treatment with Breyanzi was 54%. 

“Treatment with Breyanzi has the potential to cause severe side effects. The labeling carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which is a systemic response to the activation and proliferation of CAR T cells, causing high fever and flu-like symptoms and neurologic toxicities,” the FDA explained. “Both CRS and neurological events can be life-threatening.”

Other side effects, which typically present within 1-2 weeks after treatment, include hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, low blood cell counts, and a weakened immune system, but some side effects may occur later.

The REMS requires special certification for facilities that dispense the product and “specifies that patients be informed of the signs and symptoms of CRS and neurological toxicities following infusion – and of the importance of promptly returning to the treatment site if they develop fever or other adverse reactions after receiving treatment with Breyanzi,” the FDA noted.

Breyanzi is not indicated for patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma, the FDA noted.

Facility certification involves training to recognize and manage the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicities.

A postmarketing study to further evaluate the long-term safety will also be required.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product for the treatment of adults with certain types of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who relapse or fail to respond to at least two systemic treatments.

The new approval comes with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) because of the risk for serious adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS).

The product, from Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol Myers Squibb company, is the third gene therapy to receive FDA approval for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults, accounting for about a third of the approximately 77,000 cases diagnosed each year in the United States.

The FDA previously granted Breyanzi orphan drug, regenerative medicine advanced therapy (RMAT), and breakthrough therapy designations. The product is the first therapy with an RMAT designation to be licensed by the agency.

The new approval is based on efficacy and safety demonstrated in a pivotal phase 1 trial of more than 250 adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The complete remission rate after treatment with Breyanzi was 54%. 

“Treatment with Breyanzi has the potential to cause severe side effects. The labeling carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which is a systemic response to the activation and proliferation of CAR T cells, causing high fever and flu-like symptoms and neurologic toxicities,” the FDA explained. “Both CRS and neurological events can be life-threatening.”

Other side effects, which typically present within 1-2 weeks after treatment, include hypersensitivity reactions, serious infections, low blood cell counts, and a weakened immune system, but some side effects may occur later.

The REMS requires special certification for facilities that dispense the product and “specifies that patients be informed of the signs and symptoms of CRS and neurological toxicities following infusion – and of the importance of promptly returning to the treatment site if they develop fever or other adverse reactions after receiving treatment with Breyanzi,” the FDA noted.

Breyanzi is not indicated for patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma, the FDA noted.

Facility certification involves training to recognize and manage the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicities.

A postmarketing study to further evaluate the long-term safety will also be required.

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

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.