AVAHO

A novel community-based testing model has shown promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.

The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.

Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.

“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
 

About the study

The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.

The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.

Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.

Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.

At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
 

Results

Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.

So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.

Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.

The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).

“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”

Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.

“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.

During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.

“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.

Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.  The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.

A novel community-based testing model has shown promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.

The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.

Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.

“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
 

About the study

The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.

The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.

Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.

Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.

At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
 

Results

Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.

So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.

Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.

The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).

“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”

Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.

“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.

During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.

“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.

Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.  The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.

A novel community-based testing model has shown promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.

The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.

Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.

“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
 

About the study

The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.

The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.

Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.

Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.

At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
 

Results

Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.

So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.

Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.

The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).

“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”

Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.

“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.

During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.

“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.

Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.  The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.

Machine learning models that use routine data present in the electronic health record have identified new risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a new study.

Copyright University of Florida

The models found that hypertension, cough, and asthma, among other factors, were important in explaining the risk of early-onset CRC. For some factors, associations emerged up to 5 years before diagnosis.

These findings were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract PR-10).

“The incidence of early-onset CRC has been rising 2% annually since 1994,” noted Michael B. Quillen, one of the study authors and a medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Inherited genetic syndromes and predisposing conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease account for about half of cases in this age group, but factors explaining the other half remain a mystery.

To shed light in this area, the investigators undertook a study of patients aged 50 years or younger from the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium who had at least 2 years of EHR data. This included 783 cases with CRC and 8,981 incidence density-matched controls, with both groups having a mean age of 36 years.

The patients were split into colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, and then further divided into four prediction windows, Mr. Quillen explained. Each prediction window started with the patient’s first recorded encounter date in the EHR and ended at 0, 1, 3, or 5 years before the date of diagnosis.

The investigators used machine-learning models to determine what features (e.g., diagnoses, procedures, demographics) were important in determining risk.

Results were expressed in charts that ranked the features by their SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values, which reflect the average impact of a feature on the magnitude of model output.
 

Results: Top models and features

The top-performing models had areas under the curve of 0.61-0.75 for colon cancer risk, and 0.62-0.73 for rectal cancer risk, reported T. Maxwell Parker, another study author and medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Copyright University of Florida

For colon cancer, the top features for the 0-year cohort included some highly specific symptoms that would be expected in patients close to the diagnostic date: abdominal pain, anemia, blood in the stool, and various procedures such as CT scans. “These do not need a machine learning algorithm to identify,” Mr. Parker acknowledged.

However, there were also two noteworthy features present – cough and primary hypertension – that became the top features in the 1-year and 3-year cohorts, then dropped out in the 5-year cohort.

Other features that became important moving farther out from the diagnostic date of colon cancer, across the windows studied, were chronic sinusitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, and upper-respiratory infection.

For rectal cancer, some previously identified factors – immune conditions related to infectious disease (HIV and anogenital warts associated with human papillomavirus) as well as amoxicillin therapy – were prominent in the 0-year cohort and became increasingly important going farther out from the diagnostic date.

Obesity was the top feature in the 3-year cohort, and asthma became important in that cohort as well.

None of the rectal cancer models tested performed well at identifying important features in the 5-year cohort.

The investigators are exploring hypotheses to explain how the identified features, especially the new ones such as hypertension and cough, might contribute to CRC carcinogenesis in young adults, according to Mr. Parker. As inclusion of older patients could confound associations, research restricted to those aged 50 years and younger may be necessary.

“We would like to validate these model findings in a second independent data set, and if they are validated, we would consider a prospective cohort study with those features,” Mr. Parker said. The team also plans to refine the models with the aim of improving their areas under the curve.

Thereafter, the team hopes to explore ways for implementing the findings clinically to support screening, which will require consideration of the context, Mr. Parker concluded. “Should we use high-sensitivity or low-specificity models for screening, or do we use the balance of both? Also, different models may be suitable for different situations,” he said.

Mr. Parker and Mr. Quillen disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

Machine learning models that use routine data present in the electronic health record have identified new risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a new study.

Copyright University of Florida

The models found that hypertension, cough, and asthma, among other factors, were important in explaining the risk of early-onset CRC. For some factors, associations emerged up to 5 years before diagnosis.

These findings were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract PR-10).

“The incidence of early-onset CRC has been rising 2% annually since 1994,” noted Michael B. Quillen, one of the study authors and a medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Inherited genetic syndromes and predisposing conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease account for about half of cases in this age group, but factors explaining the other half remain a mystery.

To shed light in this area, the investigators undertook a study of patients aged 50 years or younger from the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium who had at least 2 years of EHR data. This included 783 cases with CRC and 8,981 incidence density-matched controls, with both groups having a mean age of 36 years.

The patients were split into colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, and then further divided into four prediction windows, Mr. Quillen explained. Each prediction window started with the patient’s first recorded encounter date in the EHR and ended at 0, 1, 3, or 5 years before the date of diagnosis.

The investigators used machine-learning models to determine what features (e.g., diagnoses, procedures, demographics) were important in determining risk.

Results were expressed in charts that ranked the features by their SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values, which reflect the average impact of a feature on the magnitude of model output.
 

Results: Top models and features

The top-performing models had areas under the curve of 0.61-0.75 for colon cancer risk, and 0.62-0.73 for rectal cancer risk, reported T. Maxwell Parker, another study author and medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Copyright University of Florida

For colon cancer, the top features for the 0-year cohort included some highly specific symptoms that would be expected in patients close to the diagnostic date: abdominal pain, anemia, blood in the stool, and various procedures such as CT scans. “These do not need a machine learning algorithm to identify,” Mr. Parker acknowledged.

However, there were also two noteworthy features present – cough and primary hypertension – that became the top features in the 1-year and 3-year cohorts, then dropped out in the 5-year cohort.

Other features that became important moving farther out from the diagnostic date of colon cancer, across the windows studied, were chronic sinusitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, and upper-respiratory infection.

For rectal cancer, some previously identified factors – immune conditions related to infectious disease (HIV and anogenital warts associated with human papillomavirus) as well as amoxicillin therapy – were prominent in the 0-year cohort and became increasingly important going farther out from the diagnostic date.

Obesity was the top feature in the 3-year cohort, and asthma became important in that cohort as well.

None of the rectal cancer models tested performed well at identifying important features in the 5-year cohort.

The investigators are exploring hypotheses to explain how the identified features, especially the new ones such as hypertension and cough, might contribute to CRC carcinogenesis in young adults, according to Mr. Parker. As inclusion of older patients could confound associations, research restricted to those aged 50 years and younger may be necessary.

“We would like to validate these model findings in a second independent data set, and if they are validated, we would consider a prospective cohort study with those features,” Mr. Parker said. The team also plans to refine the models with the aim of improving their areas under the curve.

Thereafter, the team hopes to explore ways for implementing the findings clinically to support screening, which will require consideration of the context, Mr. Parker concluded. “Should we use high-sensitivity or low-specificity models for screening, or do we use the balance of both? Also, different models may be suitable for different situations,” he said.

Mr. Parker and Mr. Quillen disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

Machine learning models that use routine data present in the electronic health record have identified new risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a new study.

Copyright University of Florida

The models found that hypertension, cough, and asthma, among other factors, were important in explaining the risk of early-onset CRC. For some factors, associations emerged up to 5 years before diagnosis.

These findings were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract PR-10).

“The incidence of early-onset CRC has been rising 2% annually since 1994,” noted Michael B. Quillen, one of the study authors and a medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Inherited genetic syndromes and predisposing conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease account for about half of cases in this age group, but factors explaining the other half remain a mystery.

To shed light in this area, the investigators undertook a study of patients aged 50 years or younger from the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium who had at least 2 years of EHR data. This included 783 cases with CRC and 8,981 incidence density-matched controls, with both groups having a mean age of 36 years.

The patients were split into colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, and then further divided into four prediction windows, Mr. Quillen explained. Each prediction window started with the patient’s first recorded encounter date in the EHR and ended at 0, 1, 3, or 5 years before the date of diagnosis.

The investigators used machine-learning models to determine what features (e.g., diagnoses, procedures, demographics) were important in determining risk.

Results were expressed in charts that ranked the features by their SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values, which reflect the average impact of a feature on the magnitude of model output.
 

Results: Top models and features

The top-performing models had areas under the curve of 0.61-0.75 for colon cancer risk, and 0.62-0.73 for rectal cancer risk, reported T. Maxwell Parker, another study author and medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Copyright University of Florida

For colon cancer, the top features for the 0-year cohort included some highly specific symptoms that would be expected in patients close to the diagnostic date: abdominal pain, anemia, blood in the stool, and various procedures such as CT scans. “These do not need a machine learning algorithm to identify,” Mr. Parker acknowledged.

However, there were also two noteworthy features present – cough and primary hypertension – that became the top features in the 1-year and 3-year cohorts, then dropped out in the 5-year cohort.

Other features that became important moving farther out from the diagnostic date of colon cancer, across the windows studied, were chronic sinusitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, and upper-respiratory infection.

For rectal cancer, some previously identified factors – immune conditions related to infectious disease (HIV and anogenital warts associated with human papillomavirus) as well as amoxicillin therapy – were prominent in the 0-year cohort and became increasingly important going farther out from the diagnostic date.

Obesity was the top feature in the 3-year cohort, and asthma became important in that cohort as well.

None of the rectal cancer models tested performed well at identifying important features in the 5-year cohort.

The investigators are exploring hypotheses to explain how the identified features, especially the new ones such as hypertension and cough, might contribute to CRC carcinogenesis in young adults, according to Mr. Parker. As inclusion of older patients could confound associations, research restricted to those aged 50 years and younger may be necessary.

“We would like to validate these model findings in a second independent data set, and if they are validated, we would consider a prospective cohort study with those features,” Mr. Parker said. The team also plans to refine the models with the aim of improving their areas under the curve.

Thereafter, the team hopes to explore ways for implementing the findings clinically to support screening, which will require consideration of the context, Mr. Parker concluded. “Should we use high-sensitivity or low-specificity models for screening, or do we use the balance of both? Also, different models may be suitable for different situations,” he said.

Mr. Parker and Mr. Quillen disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A third of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies die, according to updated results from the TERAVOLT registry.

The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.

“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.

Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.

The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.

Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.

“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.

Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.

Updated results

Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.

Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.

As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.

In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:

• Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
• Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).

The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:

• Male sex (OR, 1.67).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
• Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
• Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
• Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).

Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.

Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.

“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.

She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

A third of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies die, according to updated results from the TERAVOLT registry.

The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.

“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.

Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.

The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.

Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.

“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.

Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.

Updated results

Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.

Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.

As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.

In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:

• Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
• Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).

The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:

• Male sex (OR, 1.67).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
• Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
• Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
• Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).

Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.

Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.

“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.

She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

A third of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies die, according to updated results from the TERAVOLT registry.

The risk of death was similar across racial and ethnic groups. Factors associated with an increased risk of death were male sex, older age, worse performance scores, and four or more metastatic sites.

“Death rates remain high at 33%, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thoracic cancers, when available,” said Umit Tapan, MD, of Boston University.

Dr. Tapan presented the TERAVOLT update at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract P09.18), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The TERAVOLT registry is a multicenter, observational study with a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component.

The registry includes patients who have thoracic cancers – non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumors, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms – and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms.

Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan. 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization. Data collected include demographics, oncologic history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes.

“The overarching goals of this consortium are to provide data for guidance to oncology professionals on managing patients with thoracic malignancies while understanding the risk factors for morbidity and mortality from this novel virus,” Dr. Tapan said.

Data from TERAVOLT were previously presented at AACR, ASCO, and ESMO last year, as well as published in The Lancet Oncology.

Updated results

Dr. Tapan presented data on 1,011 patients from 120 centers in 19 countries. The patients’ median age was 68 years (range, 28-95 years), and more than half were male (58%). Most patients (72%) were White, 20% were Hispanic/Latino, and 8% were Black/African American.

Most patients had NSCLC (82%), and most had stage IV disease (68%). Patients had received a median of one prior line of therapy.

As in earlier reports of TERAVOLT data, the mortality rate was 33%.

In a multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of death:

• Male sex (odds ratio, 1.4).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.21).
• Performance score of 1 (OR, 1.73), 2 (OR, 4.74), and 3/4 (OR, 10.7).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 3.05).

The following characteristics were associated with an increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis:

• Male sex (OR, 1.67).
• Older age (per 10 years; OR, 1.24).
• Performance score of 2 (OR, 4.47) and 3/4 (OR, 9.63).
• Four or more metastatic sites (OR, 4.0).
• Thymic carcinoma (OR, 3.58).
• Receiving radiation (OR, 2.1).

Race and ethnicity did not seem to affect the risk of death or hospitalization, “but we plan to conduct further analysis,” Dr. Tapan said.

Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, said her hospital sees patients with lung cancer at high risk for COVID-19, but there is no screening program in place.

“We use medical consultations to focus on early diagnosis. We treat COVID-19 complications but lose a lot of patients. There is an opportunity to be found to find these patients sooner,” Dr. Reyes said.

She noted that COVID-19 will likely last a long time, and therefore “we have to protect against it and continue to diagnose lung cancer at earlier stages.”

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Tapan has no relevant disclosures. The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

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

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

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

In the first ever placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, immunotherapy with nivolumab significantly improved both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

The CONFIRM trial involved 330 previously treated patients with mesothelioma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab or placebo for 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Although recruitment to the study was stopped early because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enough data accrued to show that nivolumab improved overall survival by 28% over placebo, and increased PFS by 39%.

“Nivolumab was deemed a safe and effective treatment and should be considered a new treatment option for patients with relapsed mesothelioma,” said principal investigator Dean A. Fennell, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in thoracic medical oncology, University of Leicester (England).

He presented the results at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Rina Hui, MD, PhD, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, who was not involved in the study, said that these results had been a “long time coming.”

CONFIRM has added “important, encouraging data on immunotherapy in the salvage setting,” Dr. Hui said, noting that two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy.

Dr. Fennel noted that “a significant clinical benefit was observed in the epithelioid subtype” of the disease but not in patients with nonepithelioid disease.

However, there was “no evidence” to support programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as predictive of outcomes, he added, which does appear to be the case in some trials on lung cancer and other tumors.

Commenting on these observations, Dr. Hui said that PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker in mesothelioma has been “controversial,” and she emphasized that the results from CONFIRM indicate “no evidence of PD-L1 being predictive.”

However, Dr. Hui questioned the other observation that clinical benefit appeared to be seen only in the epithelioid subtype.

She emphasized that nonepithelioid disease is known to be a “more aggressive, chemoresistant subtype ... with a steep decline in the survival curves.

“Therefore, a lot of patients would not have made it to a subsequent-line clinical trial, explaining why there were only 12% in the CONFIRM study,” and so the sample size may be “too small to detect a difference in outcome,” Dr. Hui said.

Consequently, Dr. Hui said she “would not deny patients with nonepithelioid histology from considering nivolumab in the salvage setting.”

She argued that there was “no clear predictive biomarker for patient selection” emerging from the CONFIRM data.

She agreed that, in patients with mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy as in the first line, “monotherapy nivolumab now can be considered as a treatment option in the second- ... or third-line setting, after second-line chemotherapy”.

However, outstanding questions remain, including whether nivolumab “provides better outcomes than second-line single agent chemotherapy or second-line gemcitabine with the [vascular endothelial growth factor receptor] inhibitor ramucirumab.”

It may also be that nivolumab plus ipilimumab might be superior to nivolumab alone in the salvage setting.

But a more fundamental question is what should be considered for salvage therapy if nivolumab and ipilimumab have already been used in the first-line setting, Dr. Hui said.

Results of first-line immunotherapy combination trials are “eagerly awaited ... to determine and develop other salvage treatments,” she commented.

Responding on Twitter, Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust in Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, echoed these comments, saying that the results were “very exciting,” but he also “can’t wait to see the first-line chemo–immunotherapy data.”

Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, commented on Twitter that there was “not a lot of safety data” in the presentation and awaits their eventual publication.

He added that it is “good to have a positive trial” in relapsed mesothelioma, “though the first-line studies will decrease the eventual impact as immunotherapy becomes involved earlier in treatment.”

 

Details of the CONFIRM results 

Relapsed mesothelioma is an “unmet need,” and, until now, “there have been no phase 3 trials which have demonstrated improved overall survival,” Dr. Fennell said in his presentation.

However, three phase 2 trials have shown that immune checkpoint targeting via PD-1 has shown useful clinical activity as a monotherapy in the relapsed setting, and one of these trials has led to approval of nivolumab in Japan for this indication.

CONFIRM was an investigator-initiated phase 3 trial in patients with relapsed mesothelioma who had received more than one prior line of therapy and had a good performance status.

Recruitment began in April 2017, and the “target sample size was 336 patients,” Dr. Fennell said, but the trial was “halted at 332 patients (in March 2020) due to the peaking of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.K.”

“However, at the time, it was felt there were sufficient events” to justify the current analysis of the coprimary endpoints of PFS and OS, despite the latter being 59 events short of the target of 291.

Dr. Fennell said that baseline characteristics were “generally well balanced” between the nivolumab (n = 221) and placebo (n = 111) arms.

However, there were more patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% among the patients given nivolumab, at 37% versus 29% in the placebo arm.

After a median follow-up of 17.1 months in the nivolumab arm and 14.2 months in the placebo group, overall survival was significantly longer with the active treatment, at 9.2 months versus 6.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; P = .018).

The proportion of patients alive at 12 months was 39.5% in the nivolumab group and 26.9% in patients given placebo. Investigator-assessed PFS was also significantly longer with nivolumab, at 3.0 months versus 1.8 months with placebo (HR, 0.61; P < .001).

The proportion of patients disease free at 12 months was 14.5% with active treatment versus 4.9% months with the placebo.

“The role for PD-L1 as a potential biomarker was assessed,” Dr. Fennell said, using the Dako 22C3 antibody, with 150 nivolumab and 84 placebo patients divided into those with a TPS <1% or ≥1%.

He noted that PD-L1 expression in the tumor “did not predict survival for patients in the CONFIRM trial,” with neither PD-L1 positive nor PD-L1 negative patients demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival with nivolumab vs placebo.

“For histology, epithelioid mesothelioma patients benefited from nivolumab,” Dr. Fennell continued, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.71 versus placebo (P = .021). “However, for the nonepithelioid subgroup, in this immature survival analysis ... the P value was not significant,” but this was a small subgroup of patients (12% in both nivolumab and placebo groups).

The safety analysis revealed that the proportion of patients with any serious adverse events, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, was almost identical between the active and placebo arms, Dr. Fennel reported. There were five deaths (3.6%) related to a serious adverse event in the nivolumab arm and four (5.3%) in the placebo group.

This research was funded by the Stand Up to Cancer campaign for Cancer Research UK, supported by Cancer Research UK core funding at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, and investigator-initiated support from Bristol-Myers Squibb for free drug labeling and distribution and funding for RECIST reporting. Dr. Fennell reported relationships with Astex Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Inventiva, Lab 21, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Hui reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen.

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

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has thus far been targeted at individuals who smoke or have smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer has been found to be increasing among people who have never smoked, and they too should undergo screening, suggest researchers from Taiwan.

“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.

In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.

The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.

At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”

The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.

Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.

These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.

The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.

The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.

Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
 

More research needed

The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.

However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”

There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.

On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”

Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.

She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.

Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.

“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
 

Details of TALENT findings

The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.

Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.

They also had to have one of the following risk factors:

• Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
• Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
• Chronic lung disease, namely,  or .
• A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
• Cooking without ventilation.

The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.

Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.

Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.

Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.

Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.

Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.

Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.

Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.

Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.

The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).

The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.

The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).

The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).

The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.

The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has thus far been targeted at individuals who smoke or have smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer has been found to be increasing among people who have never smoked, and they too should undergo screening, suggest researchers from Taiwan.

“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.

In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.

The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.

At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”

The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.

Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.

These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.

The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.

The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.

Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
 

More research needed

The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.

However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”

There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.

On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”

Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.

She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.

Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.

“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
 

Details of TALENT findings

The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.

Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.

They also had to have one of the following risk factors:

• Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
• Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
• Chronic lung disease, namely,  or .
• A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
• Cooking without ventilation.

The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.

Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.

Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.

Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.

Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.

Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.

Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.

Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.

Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.

The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).

The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.

The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).

The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).

The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.

The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has thus far been targeted at individuals who smoke or have smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer has been found to be increasing among people who have never smoked, and they too should undergo screening, suggest researchers from Taiwan.

“Lung cancer in never-smokers is a global rising threat,” said lead researcher Pan-Chyr Yang, MD, PhD, chair professor at the National Taiwan University Hospital and academician of Academia Sinica, Taiwan.

In Taiwan, more than half of the cases of lung cancer occur in never-smokers; among female lung cancer patients, 93% are never-smokers.

The incidence of lung cancer – in particular, adenocarcinoma – is increasing in Taiwan, even though the prevalence of smoking has fallen dramatically in men in recent years and has remained low in women.

At the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, Dr. Yang presented new results that suggest “LDCT screening for never-smokers with high risk may be feasible.”

The Taiwan Lung Cancer Screening in Never-Smoker Trial (TALENT) recruited over 12,000 individuals aged 55-70 years who had never smoked or had done so more than 15 years previously and had risk factors such as a family history of the disease or passive smoke exposure, or who had regularly been exposed to frying food.

Participants underwent LDCT after chest x-ray, followed by biopsy if necessary.

These procedures detected largely invasive lung cancer in 2.6% of participants. Tumors were of stage 0-I in 95% of cases.

The lung cancer detection rate of 2.6% in TALENT in never-smokers is higher than has been found in large studies of smokers, including the 1.1% rate recorded in the NLST study and the 0.9% seen in the NELSON study.

The key factor associated with increased prevalence of lung cancer was a first-degree family history of the disease, Dr. Yang reported.

Notably, having a sister with lung cancer increased the risk for the disease by 78%. Having an affected brother doubled the risk. An increase in the number of first-degree relatives with lung cancer also significantly increased the risk.
 

More research needed

The TALENT study “provides new, very original evidence on lung cancer risks, and therefore lung cancer screening eligibility could be redefined in Asia, or at least in East Asia,” said the discussant for the paper, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan.

However, he said that “more research is needed on lung cancer biology in nonsmokers.”

There is currently no follow-up or mortality data, and given the proportion of patients who underwent invasive procedures, it could be that more than 40% of those procedures were carried out in individuals with benign disease, he cautioned.

On Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said that although family history “emerges” from the study as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, “this analysis would be much more insightful with genomic analyses of these cancers.”

Devika Das, MD, clinical assistant professor of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the study is “interesting,” given the rise of adenocarcinoma among never-smokers.

She agreed that further details and long-term outcomes are needed and said the key learning point was the need for a “robust” study of the biology of lung cancer in this population.

Lillian Leigh, an Australian lawyer and a lung cancer patient advocate, said the study “provides new evidence” on lung cancer risks.

“As an Asian never-smoker living with lung cancer, the TALENT trial results give me hope,” she said.
 

Details of TALENT findings

The TALENT study recruited individuals aged 55-70 years at 17 medical centers between February 2015 and July 2019.

Participants were required to be never-smokers or to have a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years and to have quit the habit more than 15 years previously.

They also had to have one of the following risk factors:

• Family history of lung cancer in up to third-degree relatives, in which case younger patients could be recruited.
• Environmental (passive) tobacco smoking history.
• Chronic lung disease, namely,  or .
• A cooking index ≥110, defined as 2/7 × the number of days of frying per week × the number of years cooking.
• Cooking without ventilation.

The participants underwent chest x-ray. If the x-ray proved negative, the team performed standard LDCT, examined blood and urine samples for lung cancer biomarkers, and administered standard questionnaires.

Participants who were found on LDCT to have solid or part-solid nodules greater than 6 mm in diameter or pure ground-glass nodules greater than 5 mm in diameter underwent biopsy or standard follow-up.

Individuals whose initial chest x-ray was positive underwent standard contrast-enhanced chest CT prior to biopsy or standard follow-up.

Of 13,207 individuals initially screened, 12,011 were enrolled. Of those, 73.8% were women. The mean age was 61.2 years, and 93.3% were never-smokers.

Among the participants, 46.4% had a first-degree family history of lung cancer; 3.0% had a second-degree family history; and 0.5% had a third-degree family history.

Environmental tobacco exposure was recorded in 83.2% of patients. Chronic lung disease was present in 9.8%; 36.7% had a cooking index ≥110; and 1.8 cooked without ventilation.

Dr. Yang said LDCT results were positive for 17.4% of patients, and 3.4% underwent invasive procedures.

Overall, lung cancer was detected in 313 participants (2.6%). Invasive lung cancer was detected in 255 (2.1%). Of those, 17.9% had multiple primary lung cancers.

Strikingly, 96.5% of the confirmed lung cancer cases were stage 0-I. The majority were stage IA, “which is higher than in other studies that have focused on heavy smokers,” Dr. Yang said. More than half of cases (58.5%) were invasive adenocarcinomas.

The prevalence of lung cancer was significantly higher among people who had a family history of the disease, at 3.2%, vs. 2.0% in those without, at a relative risk of 1.61 (P < .001).

The prevalence was higher still in individuals who had a first-degree family history of lung cancer, at 3.3%, giving a relative risk of 1.69 in comparison with those who did not have a family history (P < .001). The findings were nonsignificant for second- and third-degree relatives.

The relative risk increased even further when the first-degree relative who had a history of lung cancer was a sister, at 1.78 (P < .001), or a brother, at 2.00 (P < .001).

The relative risk was slightly lower if the patient’s relative was the mother, at 1.43 (P = .010), and was nonsignificant if the relative was the father (P = .077).

The risk for lung cancer also increased with an increase in the number of first-degree relatives with the disease, rising from 3.1% with one relative to 4.0% with two relatives, 6.7% with three relatives, and 9.1% with at least four relatives (P < .001). A similar pattern was seen for invasive lung cancer.

The other risk factors included in the study, such as environmental tobacco exposure, chronic lung disease, and cooking index, were not significantly associated with the prevalence of lung cancer.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. Dr. Yang has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and ONO Pharma and has served on the advisory board of OBI Pharma, CHO Pharma, and Lin BioScience. Dr. Pastorino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

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

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

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

Lung cancer experts have been rejoicing over new longer-term results that continue to show the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy doubles survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The results are from a 4-year follow-up of 160 patients with previously untreated stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) taking part in the KEYNOTE-189 trial of immunotherapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed–platinum chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus placebo.

After a median follow-up of 46.3 months, the median overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population was 22.0 months with the combination versus 10.6 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.60).

A similar pattern was seen for progression-free survival (PFS), with patients receiving the combination having a longer median PFS, at 9.0 months versus 4.9 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.50).

“Stellar data,” Riyaz Shah, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Royal Tunbridge Wells, England, exclaimed on Twitter.

He described the results for the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroups as “astonishing” and singled out the performance of the combination therapy in patients with very low (<1%) tumor PD-L1 expression, showing more than 23% of patients were alive at 3 years versus just over 5% in the group given chemotherapy alone.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler associate professor for lung cancer excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, said the outcomes with the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were “terrific.”

Sandip P. Patel, MD, medical oncologist, associate professor of medicine, University of California, San Diego, agreed that these long-term results were “very impressive.” However, he noted the “full effect” of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has not “fully been captured in our overall cancer mortality statistics in the U.S. yet.”

The new results were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021.

Previous results from KEYNOTE-189 had already demonstrated that, after a median follow-up of 10.5 months, adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy significantly improves both OS and PFS, compared with chemotherapy alone.

The latest results show that the combination “continued to provide overall survival and progression-free survival benefit” in extended follow-up, said study presenter Jhanelle Elaine Gray, MD, chair, department of thoracic oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

The 3-year OS rate with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone was 31.3% versus 17.4%, and the estimated 3-year PFS was 11.8% versus 1.3%.

Substantial improvements were even seen in patients with tumors that had a low level of PD-L1 expression (measured as the PD-L1 tumor proportion score [TPS]).

Dr. Gray highlighted the finding that the survival benefit with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression in the tumor, with a hazard ratio versus chemotherapy alone of 0.71 in patients with a TPS ≥ 50%, 0.66 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.52 in patients with a TPS less than 1%. A similar pattern was seen with PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.36 in patients with a TPS of at least 50%, 0.54 in those with a TPS of 1%-49%, and 0.68 in patients with a TPS less than 1%.

In addition, overall response rate and duration of response were also improved with combination therapy, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

Among 56 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 87.5% (with 10.7% having a complete response and 76.8% a partial response).

At the data cutoff, 45 patients were alive, 28 did not have progressive disease, and seven had started a second course of pembrolizumab.

The side effect profile of the combination was “manageable,” Dr. Gray reported.

The combination arm was associated with more grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events than the chemotherapy alone arm, at 52.1% versus 42.1%, and more grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions, at 27.7% versus 13.4%.

Events leading to treatment discontinuation were also more common with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy, at 27.4% versus 9.9%.

The combination of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum has already become “a standard-of-care therapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” Dr. Gray commented.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Gray disclosed relationships with Array, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, and Merck.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study links the COVID-19 pandemic to decreased lung cancer diagnoses, changes in disease severity, and worsened outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.

“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”

Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
 

Study details

Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.

The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.

The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
 

Differences by time period and subtype

During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.

Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).

Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.

In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).

For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).

Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).

For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
 

Implications and next steps

“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”

Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.

“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”

Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.

A new study links the COVID-19 pandemic to decreased lung cancer diagnoses, changes in disease severity, and worsened outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.

“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”

Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
 

Study details

Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.

The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.

The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
 

Differences by time period and subtype

During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.

Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).

Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.

In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).

For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).

Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).

For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
 

Implications and next steps

“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”

Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.

“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”

Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.

A new study links the COVID-19 pandemic to decreased lung cancer diagnoses, changes in disease severity, and worsened outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.

“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”

Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
 

Study details

Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.

The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.

The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
 

Differences by time period and subtype

During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.

Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).

Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.

In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).

For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).

Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).

For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
 

Implications and next steps

“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”

Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.

“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”

Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.

The use of low-dose aspirin among older people shows no effect in reducing the incidence of certain cancer types. However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.

“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open. 

“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.

In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.

“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.

“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
 

Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking

With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.

However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.

To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.

The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.

Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.

The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.

However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.

A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.

“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
 

Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway

Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.  

In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.

“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.

The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.

Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.

“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”

Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.

“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”

The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of low-dose aspirin among older people shows no effect in reducing the incidence of certain cancer types. However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.

“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open. 

“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.

In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.

“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.

“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
 

Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking

With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.

However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.

To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.

The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.

Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.

The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.

However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.

A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.

“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
 

Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway

Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.  

In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.

“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.

The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.

Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.

“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”

Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.

“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”

The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of low-dose aspirin among older people shows no effect in reducing the incidence of certain cancer types. However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.

“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open. 

“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.

In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.

“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.

“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
 

Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking

With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.

However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.

To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.

The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.

Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.

The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.

However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.

A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.

“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
 

Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway

Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.  

In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.

“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.

The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.

Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.

“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”

Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.

“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”

The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New findings of breast cancer gene mutations in women who have no family history of the disease offer a new way of estimating risk and may change the way in which these women are advised on risk management.

The findings come from two large studies, both published on Jan. 20 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The two articles are “extraordinary” for broadening and validating the genomic panel to help screen women at risk for breast cancer in the future, commented Eric Topol, MD, professor of molecular medicine, Scripps Research, La Jolla, Calif., and Medscape editor in chief.

“Traditionally, genetic testing of inherited breast cancer genes has focused on women at high risk who have a strong family history of breast cancer or those who were diagnosed at an early age, such as under 45 years,” commented the lead investigator of one of the studies, Fergus Couch, PhD, a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“[Although] the risk of developing breast cancer is generally lower for women without a family history of the disease ... when we looked at all women, we found that 30% of breast cancer mutations occurred in women who are not high risk,” he said.

In both studies, mutations or variants in eight genes – BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, ATM, and CHEK2 – were found to be significantly associated with breast cancer risk.

However, the distribution of mutations among women with breast cancer differed from the distribution among unaffected women, noted Steven Narod, MD, from the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

“What this means to clinicians, now that we are expanding the use of gene-panel testing to include unaffected women with a moderate risk of breast cancer in the family history, is that our time will increasingly be spent counseling women with CHEK2 and ATM mutations,” he wrote. Currently, these two are “clumped in with ‘other genes.’ ... Most of the pretest discussion is currently focused on the implications of finding a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.”

The new findings may lead to new risk management strategies, he suggested. “Most breast cancers that occur in women with a mutation in ATM or CHEK2 are estrogen receptor positive, so these women may be candidates for antiestrogen therapies such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors,” he wrote.

Dr. Narod observed that, for now, the management of most women with either mutation will consist of screening alone, starting with MRI at age 40 years.

The medical community is not ready yet to expand genetic screening to the general population, cautions Walton Taylor, MD, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

The ASBrS currently recommends that all patients with breast cancer as well as those at high risk for breast cancer be offered genetic testing. “All women at risk should be tested, and all patients with pathogenic variants need to be managed appropriately – it saves lives,” Dr. Taylor emphasized.

However, “unaffected people with no family history do not need genetic testing at this time,” he said in an interview.

As to what physicians might do to better manage patients with mutations that predispose to breast cancer, Dr. Taylor said, “It’s surprisingly easy.”

Every genetic testing company provides genetic counselors to guide patients through next steps, Dr. Taylor pointed out, and most cancer patients have nurse navigators who make sure patients get tested and followed appropriately.

Members of the ASBrS follow the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines when they identify carriers of a pathogenic variant. Dr. Taylor said these are very useful guidelines for virtually all mutations identified thus far.

“This research is not necessarily new, but it is confirmatory for what we are doing, and that helps us make sure we are going down the right pathway,” Dr. Taylor said. “It confirms that what we think is right is right – and that matters,.”
 

CARRIERS consortium findings

The study led by Dr. Couch was carried out by the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. It involved analyzing data from 17 epidemiology studies that focused on women in the general population who develop breast cancer. For the studies, which were conducted in the United States, pathogenic variants in 28 cancer-predisposition genes were sequenced from 32,247 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 32,544 unaffected women (control persons).

In the overall CARRIERS analysis, the prevalence of pathogenic variants in 12 clinically actionable genes was 5.03% among case patients and 1.63% among control persons. The prevalence was similar in non-Hispanic White women, non-Hispanic Black women, and Hispanic case patients, as well as control persons, they added. The prevalence of pathogenic variants among Asian American case patients was lower, at only 1.64%.

Among patients who had breast cancer, the most common pathogenic variants included BRCA2, which occurred in 1.29% of case patients, followed by CHEK2, at a prevalence of 1.08%, and BRCA1, at a prevalence of 0.85%.

Mutations in BRCA1 increased the risk for breast cancer more than 7.5-fold; mutations in BRCA2 increased that risk more than fivefold, the investigators stated.

Mutations in PALB2 increased the risk of breast cancer approximately fourfold, they added.

Prevalence rates for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 among breast cancer patients declined rapidly after the age of 40. The decline in other variants, including ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, was limited with increasing age.

Indeed, mutations in all five of these genes were associated with a lifetime absolute risk for breast cancer greater than 20% by the age of 85 years among non-Hispanic Whites.

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 yielded a lifetime risk for breast cancer of approximately 50%. Mutations in PALB2 yielded a lifetime breast cancer risk of approximately 32%.

The risk of having a mutation in specific genes varied depending on the type of breast cancer. For example, mutations in BARD1, RAD51C, and RAD51D increased the risk for estrogen receptor (ER)–negative breast cancer as well as triple-negative breast cancer, the authors noted, whereas mutations in ATM, CDH1, and CHEK2 increased the risk for ER-positive breast cancer.

“These refined estimates of the prevalences of pathogenic variants among women with breast cancer in the overall population, as opposed to selected high-risk patients, may inform ongoing discussions regarding testing in patients with breast cancer,” the CARRIERS authors observed.

“The risks of breast cancer associated with pathogenic variants in the genes evaluated in the population-based CARRIERS analysis also provide important information for risk assessment and counseling of women with breast cancer who do not meet high-risk selection criteria,” they suggested.
 

Similar findings in second study

The second study was conducted by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium under lead author Leila Dorling, PhD, University of Cambridge (England). This group sequenced 34 susceptibility genes from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 unaffected control persons.

“Protein-truncating variants in five genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a significant risk of breast cancer overall (P < .0001),” the BCAC members reported. “For these genes, odds ratios ranged from 2.10 to 10.57.”

The association between overall breast cancer risk and mutations in seven other genes was more modest, conferring approximately twice the risk for breast cancer overall, although that risk was threefold higher for the TP53 mutation.

For the 12 genes the consortium singled out as being associated with either a significant or a more modest risk for breast cancer, the effect size did not vary significantly between European and Asian women, the authors noted. Again, the risk for ER-positive breast cancer was over two times greater for those who had either the ATM or the CHEK2 mutation. Having mutations in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA1, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D conferred a higher risk for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease.

There was also an association between rare missense variants in six genes – CHEK2, ATM, TP53, BRCA1, CDH1, and RECQL – and overall breast cancer risk, with the clearest evidence being for CHEK2.

“The absolute risk estimates place protein-truncating variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 in the high-risk category and place protein-truncating variants in ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, RAD51CC, and RAD51D in the moderate-risk category,” Dr. Dorling and colleagues reaffirmed.

“These results may guide screening as well as prevention with risk-reducing surgery or medication, in accordance with national guidelines,” the authors suggested.

The CARRIERS study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The study by Dr. Dorling and colleagues was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programs, among others. Dr. Narod disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New findings of breast cancer gene mutations in women who have no family history of the disease offer a new way of estimating risk and may change the way in which these women are advised on risk management.

The findings come from two large studies, both published on Jan. 20 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The two articles are “extraordinary” for broadening and validating the genomic panel to help screen women at risk for breast cancer in the future, commented Eric Topol, MD, professor of molecular medicine, Scripps Research, La Jolla, Calif., and Medscape editor in chief.

“Traditionally, genetic testing of inherited breast cancer genes has focused on women at high risk who have a strong family history of breast cancer or those who were diagnosed at an early age, such as under 45 years,” commented the lead investigator of one of the studies, Fergus Couch, PhD, a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“[Although] the risk of developing breast cancer is generally lower for women without a family history of the disease ... when we looked at all women, we found that 30% of breast cancer mutations occurred in women who are not high risk,” he said.

In both studies, mutations or variants in eight genes – BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, ATM, and CHEK2 – were found to be significantly associated with breast cancer risk.

However, the distribution of mutations among women with breast cancer differed from the distribution among unaffected women, noted Steven Narod, MD, from the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

“What this means to clinicians, now that we are expanding the use of gene-panel testing to include unaffected women with a moderate risk of breast cancer in the family history, is that our time will increasingly be spent counseling women with CHEK2 and ATM mutations,” he wrote. Currently, these two are “clumped in with ‘other genes.’ ... Most of the pretest discussion is currently focused on the implications of finding a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.”

The new findings may lead to new risk management strategies, he suggested. “Most breast cancers that occur in women with a mutation in ATM or CHEK2 are estrogen receptor positive, so these women may be candidates for antiestrogen therapies such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors,” he wrote.

Dr. Narod observed that, for now, the management of most women with either mutation will consist of screening alone, starting with MRI at age 40 years.

The medical community is not ready yet to expand genetic screening to the general population, cautions Walton Taylor, MD, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

The ASBrS currently recommends that all patients with breast cancer as well as those at high risk for breast cancer be offered genetic testing. “All women at risk should be tested, and all patients with pathogenic variants need to be managed appropriately – it saves lives,” Dr. Taylor emphasized.

However, “unaffected people with no family history do not need genetic testing at this time,” he said in an interview.

As to what physicians might do to better manage patients with mutations that predispose to breast cancer, Dr. Taylor said, “It’s surprisingly easy.”

Every genetic testing company provides genetic counselors to guide patients through next steps, Dr. Taylor pointed out, and most cancer patients have nurse navigators who make sure patients get tested and followed appropriately.

Members of the ASBrS follow the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines when they identify carriers of a pathogenic variant. Dr. Taylor said these are very useful guidelines for virtually all mutations identified thus far.

“This research is not necessarily new, but it is confirmatory for what we are doing, and that helps us make sure we are going down the right pathway,” Dr. Taylor said. “It confirms that what we think is right is right – and that matters,.”
 

CARRIERS consortium findings

The study led by Dr. Couch was carried out by the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. It involved analyzing data from 17 epidemiology studies that focused on women in the general population who develop breast cancer. For the studies, which were conducted in the United States, pathogenic variants in 28 cancer-predisposition genes were sequenced from 32,247 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 32,544 unaffected women (control persons).

In the overall CARRIERS analysis, the prevalence of pathogenic variants in 12 clinically actionable genes was 5.03% among case patients and 1.63% among control persons. The prevalence was similar in non-Hispanic White women, non-Hispanic Black women, and Hispanic case patients, as well as control persons, they added. The prevalence of pathogenic variants among Asian American case patients was lower, at only 1.64%.

Among patients who had breast cancer, the most common pathogenic variants included BRCA2, which occurred in 1.29% of case patients, followed by CHEK2, at a prevalence of 1.08%, and BRCA1, at a prevalence of 0.85%.

Mutations in BRCA1 increased the risk for breast cancer more than 7.5-fold; mutations in BRCA2 increased that risk more than fivefold, the investigators stated.

Mutations in PALB2 increased the risk of breast cancer approximately fourfold, they added.

Prevalence rates for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 among breast cancer patients declined rapidly after the age of 40. The decline in other variants, including ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, was limited with increasing age.

Indeed, mutations in all five of these genes were associated with a lifetime absolute risk for breast cancer greater than 20% by the age of 85 years among non-Hispanic Whites.

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 yielded a lifetime risk for breast cancer of approximately 50%. Mutations in PALB2 yielded a lifetime breast cancer risk of approximately 32%.

The risk of having a mutation in specific genes varied depending on the type of breast cancer. For example, mutations in BARD1, RAD51C, and RAD51D increased the risk for estrogen receptor (ER)–negative breast cancer as well as triple-negative breast cancer, the authors noted, whereas mutations in ATM, CDH1, and CHEK2 increased the risk for ER-positive breast cancer.

“These refined estimates of the prevalences of pathogenic variants among women with breast cancer in the overall population, as opposed to selected high-risk patients, may inform ongoing discussions regarding testing in patients with breast cancer,” the CARRIERS authors observed.

“The risks of breast cancer associated with pathogenic variants in the genes evaluated in the population-based CARRIERS analysis also provide important information for risk assessment and counseling of women with breast cancer who do not meet high-risk selection criteria,” they suggested.
 

Similar findings in second study

The second study was conducted by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium under lead author Leila Dorling, PhD, University of Cambridge (England). This group sequenced 34 susceptibility genes from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 unaffected control persons.

“Protein-truncating variants in five genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a significant risk of breast cancer overall (P < .0001),” the BCAC members reported. “For these genes, odds ratios ranged from 2.10 to 10.57.”

The association between overall breast cancer risk and mutations in seven other genes was more modest, conferring approximately twice the risk for breast cancer overall, although that risk was threefold higher for the TP53 mutation.

For the 12 genes the consortium singled out as being associated with either a significant or a more modest risk for breast cancer, the effect size did not vary significantly between European and Asian women, the authors noted. Again, the risk for ER-positive breast cancer was over two times greater for those who had either the ATM or the CHEK2 mutation. Having mutations in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA1, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D conferred a higher risk for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease.

There was also an association between rare missense variants in six genes – CHEK2, ATM, TP53, BRCA1, CDH1, and RECQL – and overall breast cancer risk, with the clearest evidence being for CHEK2.

“The absolute risk estimates place protein-truncating variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 in the high-risk category and place protein-truncating variants in ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, RAD51CC, and RAD51D in the moderate-risk category,” Dr. Dorling and colleagues reaffirmed.

“These results may guide screening as well as prevention with risk-reducing surgery or medication, in accordance with national guidelines,” the authors suggested.

The CARRIERS study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The study by Dr. Dorling and colleagues was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programs, among others. Dr. Narod disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New findings of breast cancer gene mutations in women who have no family history of the disease offer a new way of estimating risk and may change the way in which these women are advised on risk management.

The findings come from two large studies, both published on Jan. 20 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The two articles are “extraordinary” for broadening and validating the genomic panel to help screen women at risk for breast cancer in the future, commented Eric Topol, MD, professor of molecular medicine, Scripps Research, La Jolla, Calif., and Medscape editor in chief.

“Traditionally, genetic testing of inherited breast cancer genes has focused on women at high risk who have a strong family history of breast cancer or those who were diagnosed at an early age, such as under 45 years,” commented the lead investigator of one of the studies, Fergus Couch, PhD, a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“[Although] the risk of developing breast cancer is generally lower for women without a family history of the disease ... when we looked at all women, we found that 30% of breast cancer mutations occurred in women who are not high risk,” he said.

In both studies, mutations or variants in eight genes – BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, ATM, and CHEK2 – were found to be significantly associated with breast cancer risk.

However, the distribution of mutations among women with breast cancer differed from the distribution among unaffected women, noted Steven Narod, MD, from the Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

“What this means to clinicians, now that we are expanding the use of gene-panel testing to include unaffected women with a moderate risk of breast cancer in the family history, is that our time will increasingly be spent counseling women with CHEK2 and ATM mutations,” he wrote. Currently, these two are “clumped in with ‘other genes.’ ... Most of the pretest discussion is currently focused on the implications of finding a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.”

The new findings may lead to new risk management strategies, he suggested. “Most breast cancers that occur in women with a mutation in ATM or CHEK2 are estrogen receptor positive, so these women may be candidates for antiestrogen therapies such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors,” he wrote.

Dr. Narod observed that, for now, the management of most women with either mutation will consist of screening alone, starting with MRI at age 40 years.

The medical community is not ready yet to expand genetic screening to the general population, cautions Walton Taylor, MD, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

The ASBrS currently recommends that all patients with breast cancer as well as those at high risk for breast cancer be offered genetic testing. “All women at risk should be tested, and all patients with pathogenic variants need to be managed appropriately – it saves lives,” Dr. Taylor emphasized.

However, “unaffected people with no family history do not need genetic testing at this time,” he said in an interview.

As to what physicians might do to better manage patients with mutations that predispose to breast cancer, Dr. Taylor said, “It’s surprisingly easy.”

Every genetic testing company provides genetic counselors to guide patients through next steps, Dr. Taylor pointed out, and most cancer patients have nurse navigators who make sure patients get tested and followed appropriately.

Members of the ASBrS follow the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines when they identify carriers of a pathogenic variant. Dr. Taylor said these are very useful guidelines for virtually all mutations identified thus far.

“This research is not necessarily new, but it is confirmatory for what we are doing, and that helps us make sure we are going down the right pathway,” Dr. Taylor said. “It confirms that what we think is right is right – and that matters,.”
 

CARRIERS consortium findings

The study led by Dr. Couch was carried out by the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. It involved analyzing data from 17 epidemiology studies that focused on women in the general population who develop breast cancer. For the studies, which were conducted in the United States, pathogenic variants in 28 cancer-predisposition genes were sequenced from 32,247 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 32,544 unaffected women (control persons).

In the overall CARRIERS analysis, the prevalence of pathogenic variants in 12 clinically actionable genes was 5.03% among case patients and 1.63% among control persons. The prevalence was similar in non-Hispanic White women, non-Hispanic Black women, and Hispanic case patients, as well as control persons, they added. The prevalence of pathogenic variants among Asian American case patients was lower, at only 1.64%.

Among patients who had breast cancer, the most common pathogenic variants included BRCA2, which occurred in 1.29% of case patients, followed by CHEK2, at a prevalence of 1.08%, and BRCA1, at a prevalence of 0.85%.

Mutations in BRCA1 increased the risk for breast cancer more than 7.5-fold; mutations in BRCA2 increased that risk more than fivefold, the investigators stated.

Mutations in PALB2 increased the risk of breast cancer approximately fourfold, they added.

Prevalence rates for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 among breast cancer patients declined rapidly after the age of 40. The decline in other variants, including ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, was limited with increasing age.

Indeed, mutations in all five of these genes were associated with a lifetime absolute risk for breast cancer greater than 20% by the age of 85 years among non-Hispanic Whites.

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 yielded a lifetime risk for breast cancer of approximately 50%. Mutations in PALB2 yielded a lifetime breast cancer risk of approximately 32%.

The risk of having a mutation in specific genes varied depending on the type of breast cancer. For example, mutations in BARD1, RAD51C, and RAD51D increased the risk for estrogen receptor (ER)–negative breast cancer as well as triple-negative breast cancer, the authors noted, whereas mutations in ATM, CDH1, and CHEK2 increased the risk for ER-positive breast cancer.

“These refined estimates of the prevalences of pathogenic variants among women with breast cancer in the overall population, as opposed to selected high-risk patients, may inform ongoing discussions regarding testing in patients with breast cancer,” the CARRIERS authors observed.

“The risks of breast cancer associated with pathogenic variants in the genes evaluated in the population-based CARRIERS analysis also provide important information for risk assessment and counseling of women with breast cancer who do not meet high-risk selection criteria,” they suggested.
 

Similar findings in second study

The second study was conducted by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium under lead author Leila Dorling, PhD, University of Cambridge (England). This group sequenced 34 susceptibility genes from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 unaffected control persons.

“Protein-truncating variants in five genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a significant risk of breast cancer overall (P < .0001),” the BCAC members reported. “For these genes, odds ratios ranged from 2.10 to 10.57.”

The association between overall breast cancer risk and mutations in seven other genes was more modest, conferring approximately twice the risk for breast cancer overall, although that risk was threefold higher for the TP53 mutation.

For the 12 genes the consortium singled out as being associated with either a significant or a more modest risk for breast cancer, the effect size did not vary significantly between European and Asian women, the authors noted. Again, the risk for ER-positive breast cancer was over two times greater for those who had either the ATM or the CHEK2 mutation. Having mutations in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA1, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D conferred a higher risk for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease.

There was also an association between rare missense variants in six genes – CHEK2, ATM, TP53, BRCA1, CDH1, and RECQL – and overall breast cancer risk, with the clearest evidence being for CHEK2.

“The absolute risk estimates place protein-truncating variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 in the high-risk category and place protein-truncating variants in ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, RAD51CC, and RAD51D in the moderate-risk category,” Dr. Dorling and colleagues reaffirmed.

“These results may guide screening as well as prevention with risk-reducing surgery or medication, in accordance with national guidelines,” the authors suggested.

The CARRIERS study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The study by Dr. Dorling and colleagues was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programs, among others. Dr. Narod disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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