Conference Coverage

In ongoing efforts to better understand the predictive value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in cancer treatment response, new research shows ctDNA clearance following neoadjuvant treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer is a better predictor of the risk of relapse than a 50% reduction in ctDNA variant allele frequency (VAF).

The combination of ctDNA with other baseline biomarkers shows further accuracy in predicting treatment response, the study also shows.

Matthew Nicholas Young, MD, of Barts Cancer Institute, London, presented the research at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“We found that ctDNA and tissue-based biomarkers improved biomarker accuracy,” Dr. Young, first author of the study, said at the meeting.

Furthermore, “ctDNA clearance is rare but appears more accurate than 50% reduction in VAF to predict response/relapse,” the authors said in their abstract.

“This is relevant for ongoing neoadjuvant trials planning to use this as an endpoint,” they wrote.

Dr. Young and his colleagues have previously shown ctDNA clearance to be an important predictive marker of treatment response or relapse.

To better understand the predictive value in combination with other biomarkers, as well as whether a reduction in ctDNA variant allele frequency could be used as a surrogate predictor of relapse compared with ctDNA clearance, the authors conducted an exploratory biomarker analysis of the phase 2, multicenter ABACUS trial.
 

Methods and Results

In the study, 95 patients with inoperable, muscle-invasive urothelial cancer who were either not eligible for or refused neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, each received two cycles of atezolizumab, followed by radical cystectomy.

Previously published results show the study met its primary endpoint of a pathological complete response (pCR) of 31%, and the 2-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 68% and 77%, respectively.

Of the 95 patients, 40 had sequential DNA analysis that could be evaluated in the current analysis; 43% of those patients achieved a pCR, while 20% experienced a relapse.

At baseline, 63% of patients were ctDNA-positive, and after treatment, 8% achieved ctDNA clearance, while 40% had a ctDNA response of a 50% VAF reduction.

All patients who had ctDNA clearance achieved pCR and none relapsed. In comparison, 30% of patients with a 50% VAF reduction experienced relapse and only 40% achieved pCR.

In terms of correlations with baseline biomarkers, the combination of ctDNA with activated T cells was significantly associated with outcomes (P = .02), as was the combination with PDL-1 status (P = .004).

However, combination with tumor mutation burden, already weak as a predictive biomarker, remained weak when combined with ctDNA status (P = .2), Dr. Young reported.

In terms of baseline expression of ctDNA, patients who were positive at baseline showed an increase in innate and adaptive immune signaling, in a profile aligning with increased PD-L1 at baseline in ctDNA-positive patients.

In addition, decreased immune signaling was observed in ctDNA-positive patients who relapsed.
 

Results May Be ‘Hypothesis-Generating’

Asked during the session whether the results imply that patients with no detectable ctDNA prior to the start of therapy may not need or benefit from neoadjuvant therapy, Dr. Young said the small sample size of ctDNA patients in the study was an important limitation.

“I think [the results] are hypothesis-generating, as we know that some patients will not benefit from neoadjuvant therapy and the goal of this work is to try to identify patterns among those who may not need treatment,” he said.

Of the patients with ctDNA analysis, “only those who were ctDNA-positive at baseline relapsed, [as well as] those who were ctDNA-positive following cystectomy, so I think [the possibility that a lack of detectable ctDNA prior to the start of therapy could suggest that the patient may not need or benefit from neoadjuvant therapy] is an interesting hypothesis that has come from this work,” Dr. Young said.

Overall, the findings show that, “in ctDNA-positive patients, increased immune signals appear to be associated with better outcomes with atezolizumab,” he concluded.

“Combining immune and circulating biomarkers may be required to accurately predict response to therapy,” Dr. Young added.

The ABACUS trial was supported by Roche.

In ongoing efforts to better understand the predictive value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in cancer treatment response, new research shows ctDNA clearance following neoadjuvant treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer is a better predictor of the risk of relapse than a 50% reduction in ctDNA variant allele frequency (VAF).

The combination of ctDNA with other baseline biomarkers shows further accuracy in predicting treatment response, the study also shows.

Matthew Nicholas Young, MD, of Barts Cancer Institute, London, presented the research at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“We found that ctDNA and tissue-based biomarkers improved biomarker accuracy,” Dr. Young, first author of the study, said at the meeting.

Furthermore, “ctDNA clearance is rare but appears more accurate than 50% reduction in VAF to predict response/relapse,” the authors said in their abstract.

“This is relevant for ongoing neoadjuvant trials planning to use this as an endpoint,” they wrote.

Dr. Young and his colleagues have previously shown ctDNA clearance to be an important predictive marker of treatment response or relapse.

To better understand the predictive value in combination with other biomarkers, as well as whether a reduction in ctDNA variant allele frequency could be used as a surrogate predictor of relapse compared with ctDNA clearance, the authors conducted an exploratory biomarker analysis of the phase 2, multicenter ABACUS trial.
 

Methods and Results

In the study, 95 patients with inoperable, muscle-invasive urothelial cancer who were either not eligible for or refused neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, each received two cycles of atezolizumab, followed by radical cystectomy.

Previously published results show the study met its primary endpoint of a pathological complete response (pCR) of 31%, and the 2-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 68% and 77%, respectively.

Of the 95 patients, 40 had sequential DNA analysis that could be evaluated in the current analysis; 43% of those patients achieved a pCR, while 20% experienced a relapse.

At baseline, 63% of patients were ctDNA-positive, and after treatment, 8% achieved ctDNA clearance, while 40% had a ctDNA response of a 50% VAF reduction.

All patients who had ctDNA clearance achieved pCR and none relapsed. In comparison, 30% of patients with a 50% VAF reduction experienced relapse and only 40% achieved pCR.

In terms of correlations with baseline biomarkers, the combination of ctDNA with activated T cells was significantly associated with outcomes (P = .02), as was the combination with PDL-1 status (P = .004).

However, combination with tumor mutation burden, already weak as a predictive biomarker, remained weak when combined with ctDNA status (P = .2), Dr. Young reported.

In terms of baseline expression of ctDNA, patients who were positive at baseline showed an increase in innate and adaptive immune signaling, in a profile aligning with increased PD-L1 at baseline in ctDNA-positive patients.

In addition, decreased immune signaling was observed in ctDNA-positive patients who relapsed.
 

Results May Be ‘Hypothesis-Generating’

Asked during the session whether the results imply that patients with no detectable ctDNA prior to the start of therapy may not need or benefit from neoadjuvant therapy, Dr. Young said the small sample size of ctDNA patients in the study was an important limitation.

“I think [the results] are hypothesis-generating, as we know that some patients will not benefit from neoadjuvant therapy and the goal of this work is to try to identify patterns among those who may not need treatment,” he said.

Of the patients with ctDNA analysis, “only those who were ctDNA-positive at baseline relapsed, [as well as] those who were ctDNA-positive following cystectomy, so I think [the possibility that a lack of detectable ctDNA prior to the start of therapy could suggest that the patient may not need or benefit from neoadjuvant therapy] is an interesting hypothesis that has come from this work,” Dr. Young said.

Overall, the findings show that, “in ctDNA-positive patients, increased immune signals appear to be associated with better outcomes with atezolizumab,” he concluded.

“Combining immune and circulating biomarkers may be required to accurately predict response to therapy,” Dr. Young added.

The ABACUS trial was supported by Roche.

In ongoing efforts to better understand the predictive value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in cancer treatment response, new research shows ctDNA clearance following neoadjuvant treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer is a better predictor of the risk of relapse than a 50% reduction in ctDNA variant allele frequency (VAF).

The combination of ctDNA with other baseline biomarkers shows further accuracy in predicting treatment response, the study also shows.

Matthew Nicholas Young, MD, of Barts Cancer Institute, London, presented the research at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“We found that ctDNA and tissue-based biomarkers improved biomarker accuracy,” Dr. Young, first author of the study, said at the meeting.

Furthermore, “ctDNA clearance is rare but appears more accurate than 50% reduction in VAF to predict response/relapse,” the authors said in their abstract.

“This is relevant for ongoing neoadjuvant trials planning to use this as an endpoint,” they wrote.

Dr. Young and his colleagues have previously shown ctDNA clearance to be an important predictive marker of treatment response or relapse.

To better understand the predictive value in combination with other biomarkers, as well as whether a reduction in ctDNA variant allele frequency could be used as a surrogate predictor of relapse compared with ctDNA clearance, the authors conducted an exploratory biomarker analysis of the phase 2, multicenter ABACUS trial.
 

Methods and Results

In the study, 95 patients with inoperable, muscle-invasive urothelial cancer who were either not eligible for or refused neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, each received two cycles of atezolizumab, followed by radical cystectomy.

Previously published results show the study met its primary endpoint of a pathological complete response (pCR) of 31%, and the 2-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 68% and 77%, respectively.

Of the 95 patients, 40 had sequential DNA analysis that could be evaluated in the current analysis; 43% of those patients achieved a pCR, while 20% experienced a relapse.

At baseline, 63% of patients were ctDNA-positive, and after treatment, 8% achieved ctDNA clearance, while 40% had a ctDNA response of a 50% VAF reduction.

All patients who had ctDNA clearance achieved pCR and none relapsed. In comparison, 30% of patients with a 50% VAF reduction experienced relapse and only 40% achieved pCR.

In terms of correlations with baseline biomarkers, the combination of ctDNA with activated T cells was significantly associated with outcomes (P = .02), as was the combination with PDL-1 status (P = .004).

However, combination with tumor mutation burden, already weak as a predictive biomarker, remained weak when combined with ctDNA status (P = .2), Dr. Young reported.

In terms of baseline expression of ctDNA, patients who were positive at baseline showed an increase in innate and adaptive immune signaling, in a profile aligning with increased PD-L1 at baseline in ctDNA-positive patients.

In addition, decreased immune signaling was observed in ctDNA-positive patients who relapsed.
 

Results May Be ‘Hypothesis-Generating’

Asked during the session whether the results imply that patients with no detectable ctDNA prior to the start of therapy may not need or benefit from neoadjuvant therapy, Dr. Young said the small sample size of ctDNA patients in the study was an important limitation.

“I think [the results] are hypothesis-generating, as we know that some patients will not benefit from neoadjuvant therapy and the goal of this work is to try to identify patterns among those who may not need treatment,” he said.

Of the patients with ctDNA analysis, “only those who were ctDNA-positive at baseline relapsed, [as well as] those who were ctDNA-positive following cystectomy, so I think [the possibility that a lack of detectable ctDNA prior to the start of therapy could suggest that the patient may not need or benefit from neoadjuvant therapy] is an interesting hypothesis that has come from this work,” Dr. Young said.

Overall, the findings show that, “in ctDNA-positive patients, increased immune signals appear to be associated with better outcomes with atezolizumab,” he concluded.

“Combining immune and circulating biomarkers may be required to accurately predict response to therapy,” Dr. Young added.

The ABACUS trial was supported by Roche.

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and high-dose radiation was associated with significantly better progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival compared with ADT and standard-dose radiation.
The investigators also found that the patients taking long-term ADT and high-dose radiation did not experience additional late urinary tract or gastrointestinal toxicities. Christophe Hennequin, MD, PhD, reported these and other findings of the Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients Receiving Hormone Therapy for Prostate Cancer (GETUG-AFU 18) trial, at the 2024 American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.  
Among 505 patients randomly assigned to be treated with radiation therapy (RT) at either the standard 70 Gy dose or a high, 80 Gy dose followed by 3 years of adjuvant  ADT, the 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.6% for patients who had received the 80 Gy dose, vs. 72.2% for patients who had received the 70 Gy dose. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for biochemical or clinical progression of 0.56 (P = .0005). 
This PFS advantage for high-dose radiation was also reflected by an overall survival (OS) advantage, with 10-year OS rates of 77% vs. 65.9%, respectively, translating into a 39% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.61, P = .0039) for patients who had received the higher radiation dose, reported Dr. Hennequin, of the Hospital Saint Louis in Paris, France. 
"We have now Level 1 evidence that high-dose RT with long-term ADT must be the standard of care in high-risk prostate cancer patients," he said at the meeting. 
Dr. Hennequin noted that significantly more patients assigned to high-dose RT were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) rather than conventional beam radiation, and emphasized that the superior results seen with the higher dose is likely due to the use of IMRT. 

Prior evidence 

Dr. Hennequin pointed to a meta-analysis published in The Lancet in 2022 which showed that among nearly 11,000 patients with a median follow-up of 11.4 years the addition of ADT to RT significantly improved metastasis-free survival, and that longer ADT reduced the risk of metastases by 16% compared with standard schedule ADT. 
He also cited the DART 01/05 trial results, which were published in 2022 in The Lancet: Oncology, which found a clinically relevant benefit for 24 months vs. 4 months of adjuvant ADT following a minimum of 76 Gy radiation in patients with high-risk disease, but not among patients with intermediate-risk disease.   
The GETUG-AFU 18 trial was designed to address the question of whether 80 Gy of radiation could improve outcomes compared with 70 Gy in patients treated with long-term ADT. 

Study details and results 

The investigators enrolled men with high-risk prostate cancer defined as either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level 20 ng/ml or greater, Gleason score 8 or higher, or clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, and after stratification by treatment center and lymph node resection randomly assigned them to receive either 70 Gy or 80 Gy RT followed by 3 years of ADT. 
Approximately two-thirds of the patients in each study arm had one risk factor and about one-fourth had two risk factors. The remaining patients had all three high-risk defining factors.  
Approximately 16.5% of patients in each arm had undergone lymph node dissection.  
The median ADT duration was 33.4 months. In all, 82.9% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node radiation; lymph node radiation was not performed in those patients who had negative node dissection results. 
Significantly more patients assigned to the 80 Gy dose were treated with IMRT (80.6% vs. 58.6%, P < .001).   
The cancer-specific survival rate was also higher for the group receiving the 80 Gy dose, with a 10 year rate of 95.6% vs. 90% for patients treated with 70 Gy. This difference translated into a HR of 0.48 (P = .0090).  
 

Comparable safety 

The safety analysis, which included 248 patients who received 80 Gy and 251 who received 70 Gy, showed that the incidence rates of both late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low and comparable between the groups. Grade 3 or greater late genitourinary toxicities were seen in 2.0% of patients treated with 80 Gy and 3.2% of those treated with 70 Gy. In both arms, only 1.6% of patients had grade 3 or greater later GI toxicities.  
There were also no differences between the study arms in patient-reported quality of life measures related to either bowel or urinary symptoms. 
Invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, FACR, from Penn Medicine in Philadelphia commented that the results of the GETUG-AFU 18 trial suggest that "if you had even lower-dose systemic therapy that the radiation control at the local level - local-regional level in this case - can in fact contribute to the prevention of distant metastases and can contribute to cancer-specific survival." 
She said that with the efficacy results and the comparable toxicity and quality of life measures, dose-escalated radiation therapy and long-term ADT appear to offer a synergistic benefit. 
The results are "practice-affirming for many, perhaps practice-changing for some if you're not already offering this," she said. 

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has proven itself as a prognostic tool, but questions remain as to whether it can be used to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Much of the uncertainty surrounds the sensitivity of ctDNA at the time when decisions regarding adjuvant therapy are being made.

Those were some of the key points made during a series of presentations and discussions on ctDNA at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

In a morning session, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, presented the first interim results from the multicenter, prospective observational BESPOKE CRC study, which included 689 patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer. The trial was designed to determine what effect ctDNA results would have on adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. Over a median follow-up of 24.8 months, 623 patients had ctDNA results available. ctDNA positivity was associated with worse 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) at 29.86% versus 91.59% in the stage II/III combined group (hazard ratio [HR], 12.1; P < .0001) and in stage II (HR, 18.8; P < .0001) and stage III (HR, 9.9; P < .0001) analyzed separately.

In ctDNA-positive patients, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with longer DFS than in those who did not undergo adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 3.06; P = .0025), but there was no difference in DFS between ctDNA-negative patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who didn’t. Patients who achieved ctDNA clearance had a longer median DFS (24.2 versus 13.8 months; HR, 0.4; P = .045).
 

Patient Anxiety Concerns

Dr. Kasi noted the importance of considering the patient’s view of ctDNA. There may be some concerns that such tests could cause patient anxiety, but he referenced a poster at ASCO GI which suggested the opposite. “It actually reduced anxiety, and 90% of the patients felt confident in the treatment they were receiving. They [said that] they will continue using the assay, and they value the additional information,” said Dr. Kasi, who is a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

During the Q&A after the talk, David Ellison, MD, a medical oncology and hematology specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also in New York asked Dr. Kasi: “Did this [positive ctDNA] test just prompt earlier imaging? Was it any better than conventional surveillance like CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) or imaging?” he asked.

Dr. Kasi responded that the data showed ctDNA positivity 6-9 months earlier than cancer detection through traditional imaging.

“It doesn’t necessarily replace the ongoing surveillance. This particular study did not guide or make it as a protocol as to what to do. Everything was done as part of standard of care, the usual surveillance that the cancer center follows, he said. “I think [ctDNA] would help complement the ongoing care and in conjunction with somebody who has, for example, an indeterminant lung nodule, but also has ctDNA positivity, I think it adds confidence to the decisions that one might be making.”

Eujung Kim, MD, PhD, an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, wondered if there might be chemoresistant tumor cells remaining that are not shedding DNA. “You have to keep the biology in mind as well make decisions in conjunction with the clinical situation, as opposed to in isolation with ctDNA results,” Dr. Kasi responded.

In the same session, Jeannie Tie, MD, described results from the AGITG DYNAMIC-Rectal trial, which was a randomized study to determine if ctDNA could inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in locally advanced rectal cancer. The analysis included 230 patients who were randomized to ctDNA-informed management (n = 155), with a positive test leading to adjuvant chemotherapy, or a standard arm where adjuvant therapy decisions were left to the physician (n = 75).

Adjuvant chemotherapy use was higher in the control arm (77% versus 46%; P < .001). Lymphovascular invasion was more common in the control arm (odds ratio [OR], 3.06; P = .023), and recurrence-free survival was higher in patients who remained ctDNA negative (HR, 0.29; P < .001) despite all ctDNA-positive patients and only 23% of ctDNA-negative patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The sites of relapses were also different, with 78% occurring in patients who were ctDNA negative after surgery occurring only in the lung, versus just 1% of metastases solely in the lung among those who were ctDNA positive.

In ctDNA-positive patients, 50% of relapses were only in the liver and 19% were in the liver and lung.

Over 36 months, 16% of ctDNA-negative patients developed distant relapses and 2.8% developed locoregional relapses, versus 36% and 7.1% in the ctDNA-positive group.

“Regrettably, we could not conclude about the noninferiority of [using ctDNA to guide adjuvant therapy decisions] due to the premature study closure and small sample size. We confirmed the significantly lower risk of recurrence in post-op ctDNA-negative patients compared to ctDNA-positive patients, as well as the differential pattern of relapse where lung metastases predominate in ctDNA-negative patients, while liver metastases were the dominant side of relapse in ctDNA-positive patients,” said Dr. Tie, who is a medical oncologist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia.
 

GALAXY Study Results Updated

In an afternoon session, Hiroki Yukami, MD, PhD, presented updated results of the GALAXY study, which examined 2998 patients with stage I-IV colorectal cancer who underwent ctDNA surveillance over a median 16.14 months following surgery. ctDNA-positive status was associated with worse DFS (HR, 10.53; P < .0001) in all stages as well as in stage II/III (HR, 12.05; P < .0001). The researchers also distinguished between patients with sustained ctDNA clearance and those with transient ctDNA clearance, in which a positive test occurred after an initial negative result. Recurrences occurred in 7.1% of patients with sustained ctDNA clearance, versus 85.2% of patients with transient clearance (P < .0001) and 89.4% of those with no clearance (P < .0001). “Sustained clearance indicates superior DFS compared to transient or no clearance,” said Dr. Yukami during his presentation.

Of 117 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy after testing ctDNA positive, subsequent ctDNA clearance was associated with better DFS (HR, 6.72; P < .0001). There were also better DFS outcomes among patients who saw a greater decline in ctDNA plasma levels after adjuvant chemotherapy (0%-50% versus 50%-100% reduction; HR, 2.41; P = .001).

Aparna Raj Parikh, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, served as a discussant for the GALAXY study. She acknowledged that ctDNA is the most powerful prognostic marker in oncology, but to be clinically useful it is necessary to consider its utility at the landmark time point, which is when decisions are made whether to treat with adjuvant chemotherapy. At that time point, the sensitivity of ctDNA is about 48% in the GALAXY study, which Dr. Parikh said is consistent with other data.
 

ctDNA ‘not sensitive enough’

“We know that postoperative ctDNA is only capturing 40%-50% of patients with recurrences in non–stage IV patients in multiple datasets to date. I think it’s really important to keep in mind the sensitivity of the different time points when you’re actually thinking about how to use this in clinic. The first generation of tests are certainly promising, but I would make the argument that these are just not sensitive enough,” said Dr. Parikh.

“Landmark testing is not yet sensitive enough to deescalate care in a patient where chemotherapy would otherwise be indicated, and surveillance testing has not yet demonstrated clinical utility. I think our goal to actually deescalate care would be to try to lower the ctDNA-negative population recurrence risk to akin to stage I patients, with that 5-year DFS of 93%-95%,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Parikh offered some advice on how to use ctDNA outside of a clinical trial setting. She said that positive ctDNA results can help drive the decision to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy in concert with clinical and other factors.

“I’m pretty convinced by the data that ctDNA is prognostic, and though we still need outcomes data, in particular scenarios where I’m thinking of not giving chemotherapy, a positive test may sway me in that direction,” she said. She gave examples such as patients with a single high-risk feature, or a stage III patient with marginal performance status, or an elderly patient with low-risk stage III disease.

Dr. Kasi has financial relationships with Precision Biosensors, Elicio Therapeutics, Bayer, BostonGene, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Delcath Systems, Eisai, Elicio Therapeutics, Exact Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Natera, NeoGenomics, QED Therapeutics, SAGA Diagnostics, Seagen, SERVIER, Taiho Oncology, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Boston Scientific, and Tersera. Dr. Tie, Dr. Kim, Dr. Ellison, and Dr. Yukami did not disclose conflicts of interest. Dr. Parikh has financial relationships with Abbvie, Bayer, Biofidelity, CheckMate Pharmaceuticals, CVS, Delcath Systems, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Lily, SAGA Diagnostics, Scarce, Seagen, Taiho Oncology, Takeda, UpToDate, and Value Analytics Labs.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has proven itself as a prognostic tool, but questions remain as to whether it can be used to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Much of the uncertainty surrounds the sensitivity of ctDNA at the time when decisions regarding adjuvant therapy are being made.

Those were some of the key points made during a series of presentations and discussions on ctDNA at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

In a morning session, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, presented the first interim results from the multicenter, prospective observational BESPOKE CRC study, which included 689 patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer. The trial was designed to determine what effect ctDNA results would have on adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. Over a median follow-up of 24.8 months, 623 patients had ctDNA results available. ctDNA positivity was associated with worse 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) at 29.86% versus 91.59% in the stage II/III combined group (hazard ratio [HR], 12.1; P < .0001) and in stage II (HR, 18.8; P < .0001) and stage III (HR, 9.9; P < .0001) analyzed separately.

In ctDNA-positive patients, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with longer DFS than in those who did not undergo adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 3.06; P = .0025), but there was no difference in DFS between ctDNA-negative patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who didn’t. Patients who achieved ctDNA clearance had a longer median DFS (24.2 versus 13.8 months; HR, 0.4; P = .045).
 

Patient Anxiety Concerns

Dr. Kasi noted the importance of considering the patient’s view of ctDNA. There may be some concerns that such tests could cause patient anxiety, but he referenced a poster at ASCO GI which suggested the opposite. “It actually reduced anxiety, and 90% of the patients felt confident in the treatment they were receiving. They [said that] they will continue using the assay, and they value the additional information,” said Dr. Kasi, who is a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

During the Q&A after the talk, David Ellison, MD, a medical oncology and hematology specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also in New York asked Dr. Kasi: “Did this [positive ctDNA] test just prompt earlier imaging? Was it any better than conventional surveillance like CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) or imaging?” he asked.

Dr. Kasi responded that the data showed ctDNA positivity 6-9 months earlier than cancer detection through traditional imaging.

“It doesn’t necessarily replace the ongoing surveillance. This particular study did not guide or make it as a protocol as to what to do. Everything was done as part of standard of care, the usual surveillance that the cancer center follows, he said. “I think [ctDNA] would help complement the ongoing care and in conjunction with somebody who has, for example, an indeterminant lung nodule, but also has ctDNA positivity, I think it adds confidence to the decisions that one might be making.”

Eujung Kim, MD, PhD, an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, wondered if there might be chemoresistant tumor cells remaining that are not shedding DNA. “You have to keep the biology in mind as well make decisions in conjunction with the clinical situation, as opposed to in isolation with ctDNA results,” Dr. Kasi responded.

In the same session, Jeannie Tie, MD, described results from the AGITG DYNAMIC-Rectal trial, which was a randomized study to determine if ctDNA could inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in locally advanced rectal cancer. The analysis included 230 patients who were randomized to ctDNA-informed management (n = 155), with a positive test leading to adjuvant chemotherapy, or a standard arm where adjuvant therapy decisions were left to the physician (n = 75).

Adjuvant chemotherapy use was higher in the control arm (77% versus 46%; P < .001). Lymphovascular invasion was more common in the control arm (odds ratio [OR], 3.06; P = .023), and recurrence-free survival was higher in patients who remained ctDNA negative (HR, 0.29; P < .001) despite all ctDNA-positive patients and only 23% of ctDNA-negative patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The sites of relapses were also different, with 78% occurring in patients who were ctDNA negative after surgery occurring only in the lung, versus just 1% of metastases solely in the lung among those who were ctDNA positive.

In ctDNA-positive patients, 50% of relapses were only in the liver and 19% were in the liver and lung.

Over 36 months, 16% of ctDNA-negative patients developed distant relapses and 2.8% developed locoregional relapses, versus 36% and 7.1% in the ctDNA-positive group.

“Regrettably, we could not conclude about the noninferiority of [using ctDNA to guide adjuvant therapy decisions] due to the premature study closure and small sample size. We confirmed the significantly lower risk of recurrence in post-op ctDNA-negative patients compared to ctDNA-positive patients, as well as the differential pattern of relapse where lung metastases predominate in ctDNA-negative patients, while liver metastases were the dominant side of relapse in ctDNA-positive patients,” said Dr. Tie, who is a medical oncologist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia.
 

GALAXY Study Results Updated

In an afternoon session, Hiroki Yukami, MD, PhD, presented updated results of the GALAXY study, which examined 2998 patients with stage I-IV colorectal cancer who underwent ctDNA surveillance over a median 16.14 months following surgery. ctDNA-positive status was associated with worse DFS (HR, 10.53; P < .0001) in all stages as well as in stage II/III (HR, 12.05; P < .0001). The researchers also distinguished between patients with sustained ctDNA clearance and those with transient ctDNA clearance, in which a positive test occurred after an initial negative result. Recurrences occurred in 7.1% of patients with sustained ctDNA clearance, versus 85.2% of patients with transient clearance (P < .0001) and 89.4% of those with no clearance (P < .0001). “Sustained clearance indicates superior DFS compared to transient or no clearance,” said Dr. Yukami during his presentation.

Of 117 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy after testing ctDNA positive, subsequent ctDNA clearance was associated with better DFS (HR, 6.72; P < .0001). There were also better DFS outcomes among patients who saw a greater decline in ctDNA plasma levels after adjuvant chemotherapy (0%-50% versus 50%-100% reduction; HR, 2.41; P = .001).

Aparna Raj Parikh, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, served as a discussant for the GALAXY study. She acknowledged that ctDNA is the most powerful prognostic marker in oncology, but to be clinically useful it is necessary to consider its utility at the landmark time point, which is when decisions are made whether to treat with adjuvant chemotherapy. At that time point, the sensitivity of ctDNA is about 48% in the GALAXY study, which Dr. Parikh said is consistent with other data.
 

ctDNA ‘not sensitive enough’

“We know that postoperative ctDNA is only capturing 40%-50% of patients with recurrences in non–stage IV patients in multiple datasets to date. I think it’s really important to keep in mind the sensitivity of the different time points when you’re actually thinking about how to use this in clinic. The first generation of tests are certainly promising, but I would make the argument that these are just not sensitive enough,” said Dr. Parikh.

“Landmark testing is not yet sensitive enough to deescalate care in a patient where chemotherapy would otherwise be indicated, and surveillance testing has not yet demonstrated clinical utility. I think our goal to actually deescalate care would be to try to lower the ctDNA-negative population recurrence risk to akin to stage I patients, with that 5-year DFS of 93%-95%,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Parikh offered some advice on how to use ctDNA outside of a clinical trial setting. She said that positive ctDNA results can help drive the decision to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy in concert with clinical and other factors.

“I’m pretty convinced by the data that ctDNA is prognostic, and though we still need outcomes data, in particular scenarios where I’m thinking of not giving chemotherapy, a positive test may sway me in that direction,” she said. She gave examples such as patients with a single high-risk feature, or a stage III patient with marginal performance status, or an elderly patient with low-risk stage III disease.

Dr. Kasi has financial relationships with Precision Biosensors, Elicio Therapeutics, Bayer, BostonGene, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Delcath Systems, Eisai, Elicio Therapeutics, Exact Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Natera, NeoGenomics, QED Therapeutics, SAGA Diagnostics, Seagen, SERVIER, Taiho Oncology, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Boston Scientific, and Tersera. Dr. Tie, Dr. Kim, Dr. Ellison, and Dr. Yukami did not disclose conflicts of interest. Dr. Parikh has financial relationships with Abbvie, Bayer, Biofidelity, CheckMate Pharmaceuticals, CVS, Delcath Systems, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Lily, SAGA Diagnostics, Scarce, Seagen, Taiho Oncology, Takeda, UpToDate, and Value Analytics Labs.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has proven itself as a prognostic tool, but questions remain as to whether it can be used to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Much of the uncertainty surrounds the sensitivity of ctDNA at the time when decisions regarding adjuvant therapy are being made.

Those were some of the key points made during a series of presentations and discussions on ctDNA at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

In a morning session, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, presented the first interim results from the multicenter, prospective observational BESPOKE CRC study, which included 689 patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer. The trial was designed to determine what effect ctDNA results would have on adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. Over a median follow-up of 24.8 months, 623 patients had ctDNA results available. ctDNA positivity was associated with worse 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) at 29.86% versus 91.59% in the stage II/III combined group (hazard ratio [HR], 12.1; P < .0001) and in stage II (HR, 18.8; P < .0001) and stage III (HR, 9.9; P < .0001) analyzed separately.

In ctDNA-positive patients, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with longer DFS than in those who did not undergo adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 3.06; P = .0025), but there was no difference in DFS between ctDNA-negative patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who didn’t. Patients who achieved ctDNA clearance had a longer median DFS (24.2 versus 13.8 months; HR, 0.4; P = .045).
 

Patient Anxiety Concerns

Dr. Kasi noted the importance of considering the patient’s view of ctDNA. There may be some concerns that such tests could cause patient anxiety, but he referenced a poster at ASCO GI which suggested the opposite. “It actually reduced anxiety, and 90% of the patients felt confident in the treatment they were receiving. They [said that] they will continue using the assay, and they value the additional information,” said Dr. Kasi, who is a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

During the Q&A after the talk, David Ellison, MD, a medical oncology and hematology specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also in New York asked Dr. Kasi: “Did this [positive ctDNA] test just prompt earlier imaging? Was it any better than conventional surveillance like CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) or imaging?” he asked.

Dr. Kasi responded that the data showed ctDNA positivity 6-9 months earlier than cancer detection through traditional imaging.

“It doesn’t necessarily replace the ongoing surveillance. This particular study did not guide or make it as a protocol as to what to do. Everything was done as part of standard of care, the usual surveillance that the cancer center follows, he said. “I think [ctDNA] would help complement the ongoing care and in conjunction with somebody who has, for example, an indeterminant lung nodule, but also has ctDNA positivity, I think it adds confidence to the decisions that one might be making.”

Eujung Kim, MD, PhD, an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, wondered if there might be chemoresistant tumor cells remaining that are not shedding DNA. “You have to keep the biology in mind as well make decisions in conjunction with the clinical situation, as opposed to in isolation with ctDNA results,” Dr. Kasi responded.

In the same session, Jeannie Tie, MD, described results from the AGITG DYNAMIC-Rectal trial, which was a randomized study to determine if ctDNA could inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in locally advanced rectal cancer. The analysis included 230 patients who were randomized to ctDNA-informed management (n = 155), with a positive test leading to adjuvant chemotherapy, or a standard arm where adjuvant therapy decisions were left to the physician (n = 75).

Adjuvant chemotherapy use was higher in the control arm (77% versus 46%; P < .001). Lymphovascular invasion was more common in the control arm (odds ratio [OR], 3.06; P = .023), and recurrence-free survival was higher in patients who remained ctDNA negative (HR, 0.29; P < .001) despite all ctDNA-positive patients and only 23% of ctDNA-negative patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The sites of relapses were also different, with 78% occurring in patients who were ctDNA negative after surgery occurring only in the lung, versus just 1% of metastases solely in the lung among those who were ctDNA positive.

In ctDNA-positive patients, 50% of relapses were only in the liver and 19% were in the liver and lung.

Over 36 months, 16% of ctDNA-negative patients developed distant relapses and 2.8% developed locoregional relapses, versus 36% and 7.1% in the ctDNA-positive group.

“Regrettably, we could not conclude about the noninferiority of [using ctDNA to guide adjuvant therapy decisions] due to the premature study closure and small sample size. We confirmed the significantly lower risk of recurrence in post-op ctDNA-negative patients compared to ctDNA-positive patients, as well as the differential pattern of relapse where lung metastases predominate in ctDNA-negative patients, while liver metastases were the dominant side of relapse in ctDNA-positive patients,” said Dr. Tie, who is a medical oncologist at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia.
 

GALAXY Study Results Updated

In an afternoon session, Hiroki Yukami, MD, PhD, presented updated results of the GALAXY study, which examined 2998 patients with stage I-IV colorectal cancer who underwent ctDNA surveillance over a median 16.14 months following surgery. ctDNA-positive status was associated with worse DFS (HR, 10.53; P < .0001) in all stages as well as in stage II/III (HR, 12.05; P < .0001). The researchers also distinguished between patients with sustained ctDNA clearance and those with transient ctDNA clearance, in which a positive test occurred after an initial negative result. Recurrences occurred in 7.1% of patients with sustained ctDNA clearance, versus 85.2% of patients with transient clearance (P < .0001) and 89.4% of those with no clearance (P < .0001). “Sustained clearance indicates superior DFS compared to transient or no clearance,” said Dr. Yukami during his presentation.

Of 117 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy after testing ctDNA positive, subsequent ctDNA clearance was associated with better DFS (HR, 6.72; P < .0001). There were also better DFS outcomes among patients who saw a greater decline in ctDNA plasma levels after adjuvant chemotherapy (0%-50% versus 50%-100% reduction; HR, 2.41; P = .001).

Aparna Raj Parikh, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, served as a discussant for the GALAXY study. She acknowledged that ctDNA is the most powerful prognostic marker in oncology, but to be clinically useful it is necessary to consider its utility at the landmark time point, which is when decisions are made whether to treat with adjuvant chemotherapy. At that time point, the sensitivity of ctDNA is about 48% in the GALAXY study, which Dr. Parikh said is consistent with other data.
 

ctDNA ‘not sensitive enough’

“We know that postoperative ctDNA is only capturing 40%-50% of patients with recurrences in non–stage IV patients in multiple datasets to date. I think it’s really important to keep in mind the sensitivity of the different time points when you’re actually thinking about how to use this in clinic. The first generation of tests are certainly promising, but I would make the argument that these are just not sensitive enough,” said Dr. Parikh.

“Landmark testing is not yet sensitive enough to deescalate care in a patient where chemotherapy would otherwise be indicated, and surveillance testing has not yet demonstrated clinical utility. I think our goal to actually deescalate care would be to try to lower the ctDNA-negative population recurrence risk to akin to stage I patients, with that 5-year DFS of 93%-95%,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Parikh offered some advice on how to use ctDNA outside of a clinical trial setting. She said that positive ctDNA results can help drive the decision to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy in concert with clinical and other factors.

“I’m pretty convinced by the data that ctDNA is prognostic, and though we still need outcomes data, in particular scenarios where I’m thinking of not giving chemotherapy, a positive test may sway me in that direction,” she said. She gave examples such as patients with a single high-risk feature, or a stage III patient with marginal performance status, or an elderly patient with low-risk stage III disease.

Dr. Kasi has financial relationships with Precision Biosensors, Elicio Therapeutics, Bayer, BostonGene, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Delcath Systems, Eisai, Elicio Therapeutics, Exact Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Natera, NeoGenomics, QED Therapeutics, SAGA Diagnostics, Seagen, SERVIER, Taiho Oncology, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Boston Scientific, and Tersera. Dr. Tie, Dr. Kim, Dr. Ellison, and Dr. Yukami did not disclose conflicts of interest. Dr. Parikh has financial relationships with Abbvie, Bayer, Biofidelity, CheckMate Pharmaceuticals, CVS, Delcath Systems, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Illumina, Lily, SAGA Diagnostics, Scarce, Seagen, Taiho Oncology, Takeda, UpToDate, and Value Analytics Labs.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Advances in treating medical conditions rarely emerge in a straight line. Oftentimes, progress comes in fits and starts, and therapies to treat cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and dermatomyositis are no exception.

Beyond approved treatments that deserve more attention, like belimumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 2011, and Octagam 10%, an intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) preparation approved for dermatomyositis in 2021, anticipation is growing for emerging therapies and their potential to provide relief to patients, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors brepocitinib and baricitinib, and the monoclonal antibody anifrolumab, he noted, are prime examples.

“There have been significant advances in the development of treatments for lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. In my opinion, this is the start of what will be the most exciting decade in the history of these two diseases,” said Dr. Fernandez, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Emerging Treatments for Cutaneous Lupus

Although SLE can involve many organ systems, the skin is one of the most affected. There are specific cutaneous lesions categorized as either acute cutaneous lupus, subacute cutaneous lupus, or chronic cutaneous lupus.

The oral TYK2 inhibitor deucravacitinib, for example, should be able to dampen interleukin responses in people with CLE, Dr. Fernandez said. Deucravacitinib was approved by the FDA to treat psoriasis in September 2022.

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

A phase 2 study published in 2023 focused on this agent for relief of systemic lupus. Improvements in cutaneous disease were a secondary endpoint. The trial demonstrated that the patients treated with deucravacitinib achieved a 56%-70% CLASI-50 response, depending on dosing, compared with a 17% response among those on placebo at week 48.

Based on the trial results, recruitment has begun for a phase 2 trial to evaluate deucravacitinib, compared with placebo, in patients with discoid and/or subacute cutaneous lupus. “This may be another medicine we have available to give to any of our patients with cutaneous lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.
 

Anifrolumab Appears Promising

The FDA approval of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, for treating moderate to severe SLE in July 2021, for example, is good news for dermatologists and their patients, added Dr. Fernandez. “Almost immediately after approval, case studies showed marked improvement in patients with refractory cutaneous lupus.” While the therapy was approved for treating systemic lupus, it allows for off-label treatment of the cutaneous predominant form of the disease, he said.

Furthermore, the manufacturer of anifrolumab, AstraZeneca, is launching the LAVENDER clinical trial to assess the monoclonal antibody specifically for treating CLE. “This is a big deal because we may be able to prescribe anifrolumab for our cutaneous lupus patients who don’t have systemic lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Phase 3 data supported use the of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, including the TULIP-2 trial, which demonstrated its superiority to placebo for reducing severity of systemic disease and lowering corticosteroid use. A study published in March 2023 of 11 patients showed that they had a “very fast response” to the agent, Dr. Fernandez said, with a 50% or greater improvement in the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity score reached by all participants at week 16. Improvements of 50% or more in this scoring system are considered clinically meaningful, he added.
 

Upcoming Dermatomyositis Treatments

Why highlight emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis in the same ODAC presentation? Although distinct conditions, these autoimmune conditions are both mediated by type 1 IFN inflammation.

Dermatomyositis is a relatively rare immune-mediated disease that most commonly affects the skin and muscle. Doctors score disease presentation, activity, and clinical improvements on a scale similar to CLASI for cutaneous lupus, the CDASI or Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index. Among people with CDASI activity scores of at least 14, which is the threshold for moderate to severe disease, a 20% improvement is clinically meaningful, Dr. Fernandez said. In addition, a 40% or greater improvement correlates with significant improvements in quality of life.

There is now more evidence for the use of IVIG to treat dermatomyositis. “Among those of us who treat dermatomyositis on a regular basis, we believe IVIG is the most potent treatment. We’ve known that for a long time,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Despite this tenet, for years, there was only one placebo-controlled trial, published in 1993, that evaluated IVIG treatment for dermatomyositis, and it included only 15 participants. That was until October 2022, he said, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing a specific brand of IVIG (Octagam) with placebo in 95 people with dermatomyositis.

In the study, 79% of participants treated with IVIG had a total improvement score of at least 20 (minimal improvement), the primary endpoint, at 16 weeks, compared with 44% of those receiving a placebo. Those treated with IVIG also had significant improvements in the CDASI score, a secondary endpoint, compared with those on placebo, he said.

Based on results of this trial, the FDA approved Octagam 10% for dermatomyositis in adults. Dr. Fernandez noted the approval is restricted to the brand of IVIG in the trial, not all IVIG products. However, “the FDA approval is most important to us because it gives us ammunition to fight for insurers to approve IVIG when we feel our patients with dermatomyositis need it,” regardless of the brand.
 

The Potential of JAK1 Inhibitors

An open-label study of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, published in December 2020, showed that mean changes in CDASI activity scores at 12 weeks were statistically significant compared with baseline in 10 people with dermatomyositis. “The importance of this study is that it is proof of concept that JAK inhibition can be effective for treating dermatomyositis, especially with active skin disease,” Dr. Fernandez said.

In addition, two large phase 3 trials are evaluating JAK inhibitor safety and efficacy for treating dermatomyositis. One is the VALOR trial, currently recruiting people with recalcitrant dermatomyositis to evaluate treatment with brepocitinib. Researchers in France are looking at another JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, for treating relapsing or treatment-naive dermatomyositis. Recruitment for the BIRD clinical trial is ongoing.

Monoclonal Antibody Showing Promise

“When it comes to looking specifically at dermatomyositis cutaneous disease, it’s been found that the levels of IFN beta correlate best with not only lesional skin type 1 IFN inflammatory signatures but also overall clinical disease activity,” Dr. Fernandez said. This correlation is stronger than for any other IFN-1-type cytokine active in the disorder.

“Perhaps blocking IFN beta might be best way to get control of dermatomyositis activity,” he added.

With that in mind, a phase 2 trial of dazukibart presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2023 annual meeting highlighted the promise of this agent that targets type 1 IFN beta.

The primary endpoint was improvement in CDASI at 12 weeks. “This medication has remarkable efficacy,” Dr. Fernandez said. “We were one of the sites for this trial. Despite being blinded, there was no question about who was receiving drug and who was receiving placebo.”

“A minimal clinical improvement in disease activity was seen in more than 90%, so almost every patient who received this medication had meaningful improvement,” he added.

Based on the results, the manufacturer, Pfizer, is recruiting participants for a phase 3 trial to further assess dazukibart in dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Dr. Fernandez said, “This is a story you should pay attention to if you treat any dermatomyositis patients at all.”

Regarding these emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis, “This looks very much like the early days of psoriasis, in the early 2000s, when there was a lot of activity developing treatments,” Dr. Fernandez said. “I will predict that within 10 years, we will have multiple novel agents available that will probably work better than anything we have today.”

Dr. Fernandez reported receiving grant and/or research support from Alexion, Incyte, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Priovant Therapeutics; acting as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Biogen, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and being a member of the speaker bureau or receiving honoraria for non-CME from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Advances in treating medical conditions rarely emerge in a straight line. Oftentimes, progress comes in fits and starts, and therapies to treat cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and dermatomyositis are no exception.

Beyond approved treatments that deserve more attention, like belimumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 2011, and Octagam 10%, an intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) preparation approved for dermatomyositis in 2021, anticipation is growing for emerging therapies and their potential to provide relief to patients, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors brepocitinib and baricitinib, and the monoclonal antibody anifrolumab, he noted, are prime examples.

“There have been significant advances in the development of treatments for lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. In my opinion, this is the start of what will be the most exciting decade in the history of these two diseases,” said Dr. Fernandez, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Emerging Treatments for Cutaneous Lupus

Although SLE can involve many organ systems, the skin is one of the most affected. There are specific cutaneous lesions categorized as either acute cutaneous lupus, subacute cutaneous lupus, or chronic cutaneous lupus.

The oral TYK2 inhibitor deucravacitinib, for example, should be able to dampen interleukin responses in people with CLE, Dr. Fernandez said. Deucravacitinib was approved by the FDA to treat psoriasis in September 2022.

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

A phase 2 study published in 2023 focused on this agent for relief of systemic lupus. Improvements in cutaneous disease were a secondary endpoint. The trial demonstrated that the patients treated with deucravacitinib achieved a 56%-70% CLASI-50 response, depending on dosing, compared with a 17% response among those on placebo at week 48.

Based on the trial results, recruitment has begun for a phase 2 trial to evaluate deucravacitinib, compared with placebo, in patients with discoid and/or subacute cutaneous lupus. “This may be another medicine we have available to give to any of our patients with cutaneous lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.
 

Anifrolumab Appears Promising

The FDA approval of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, for treating moderate to severe SLE in July 2021, for example, is good news for dermatologists and their patients, added Dr. Fernandez. “Almost immediately after approval, case studies showed marked improvement in patients with refractory cutaneous lupus.” While the therapy was approved for treating systemic lupus, it allows for off-label treatment of the cutaneous predominant form of the disease, he said.

Furthermore, the manufacturer of anifrolumab, AstraZeneca, is launching the LAVENDER clinical trial to assess the monoclonal antibody specifically for treating CLE. “This is a big deal because we may be able to prescribe anifrolumab for our cutaneous lupus patients who don’t have systemic lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Phase 3 data supported use the of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, including the TULIP-2 trial, which demonstrated its superiority to placebo for reducing severity of systemic disease and lowering corticosteroid use. A study published in March 2023 of 11 patients showed that they had a “very fast response” to the agent, Dr. Fernandez said, with a 50% or greater improvement in the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity score reached by all participants at week 16. Improvements of 50% or more in this scoring system are considered clinically meaningful, he added.
 

Upcoming Dermatomyositis Treatments

Why highlight emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis in the same ODAC presentation? Although distinct conditions, these autoimmune conditions are both mediated by type 1 IFN inflammation.

Dermatomyositis is a relatively rare immune-mediated disease that most commonly affects the skin and muscle. Doctors score disease presentation, activity, and clinical improvements on a scale similar to CLASI for cutaneous lupus, the CDASI or Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index. Among people with CDASI activity scores of at least 14, which is the threshold for moderate to severe disease, a 20% improvement is clinically meaningful, Dr. Fernandez said. In addition, a 40% or greater improvement correlates with significant improvements in quality of life.

There is now more evidence for the use of IVIG to treat dermatomyositis. “Among those of us who treat dermatomyositis on a regular basis, we believe IVIG is the most potent treatment. We’ve known that for a long time,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Despite this tenet, for years, there was only one placebo-controlled trial, published in 1993, that evaluated IVIG treatment for dermatomyositis, and it included only 15 participants. That was until October 2022, he said, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing a specific brand of IVIG (Octagam) with placebo in 95 people with dermatomyositis.

In the study, 79% of participants treated with IVIG had a total improvement score of at least 20 (minimal improvement), the primary endpoint, at 16 weeks, compared with 44% of those receiving a placebo. Those treated with IVIG also had significant improvements in the CDASI score, a secondary endpoint, compared with those on placebo, he said.

Based on results of this trial, the FDA approved Octagam 10% for dermatomyositis in adults. Dr. Fernandez noted the approval is restricted to the brand of IVIG in the trial, not all IVIG products. However, “the FDA approval is most important to us because it gives us ammunition to fight for insurers to approve IVIG when we feel our patients with dermatomyositis need it,” regardless of the brand.
 

The Potential of JAK1 Inhibitors

An open-label study of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, published in December 2020, showed that mean changes in CDASI activity scores at 12 weeks were statistically significant compared with baseline in 10 people with dermatomyositis. “The importance of this study is that it is proof of concept that JAK inhibition can be effective for treating dermatomyositis, especially with active skin disease,” Dr. Fernandez said.

In addition, two large phase 3 trials are evaluating JAK inhibitor safety and efficacy for treating dermatomyositis. One is the VALOR trial, currently recruiting people with recalcitrant dermatomyositis to evaluate treatment with brepocitinib. Researchers in France are looking at another JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, for treating relapsing or treatment-naive dermatomyositis. Recruitment for the BIRD clinical trial is ongoing.

Monoclonal Antibody Showing Promise

“When it comes to looking specifically at dermatomyositis cutaneous disease, it’s been found that the levels of IFN beta correlate best with not only lesional skin type 1 IFN inflammatory signatures but also overall clinical disease activity,” Dr. Fernandez said. This correlation is stronger than for any other IFN-1-type cytokine active in the disorder.

“Perhaps blocking IFN beta might be best way to get control of dermatomyositis activity,” he added.

With that in mind, a phase 2 trial of dazukibart presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2023 annual meeting highlighted the promise of this agent that targets type 1 IFN beta.

The primary endpoint was improvement in CDASI at 12 weeks. “This medication has remarkable efficacy,” Dr. Fernandez said. “We were one of the sites for this trial. Despite being blinded, there was no question about who was receiving drug and who was receiving placebo.”

“A minimal clinical improvement in disease activity was seen in more than 90%, so almost every patient who received this medication had meaningful improvement,” he added.

Based on the results, the manufacturer, Pfizer, is recruiting participants for a phase 3 trial to further assess dazukibart in dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Dr. Fernandez said, “This is a story you should pay attention to if you treat any dermatomyositis patients at all.”

Regarding these emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis, “This looks very much like the early days of psoriasis, in the early 2000s, when there was a lot of activity developing treatments,” Dr. Fernandez said. “I will predict that within 10 years, we will have multiple novel agents available that will probably work better than anything we have today.”

Dr. Fernandez reported receiving grant and/or research support from Alexion, Incyte, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Priovant Therapeutics; acting as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Biogen, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and being a member of the speaker bureau or receiving honoraria for non-CME from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Advances in treating medical conditions rarely emerge in a straight line. Oftentimes, progress comes in fits and starts, and therapies to treat cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and dermatomyositis are no exception.

Beyond approved treatments that deserve more attention, like belimumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 2011, and Octagam 10%, an intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) preparation approved for dermatomyositis in 2021, anticipation is growing for emerging therapies and their potential to provide relief to patients, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors brepocitinib and baricitinib, and the monoclonal antibody anifrolumab, he noted, are prime examples.

“There have been significant advances in the development of treatments for lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. In my opinion, this is the start of what will be the most exciting decade in the history of these two diseases,” said Dr. Fernandez, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Emerging Treatments for Cutaneous Lupus

Although SLE can involve many organ systems, the skin is one of the most affected. There are specific cutaneous lesions categorized as either acute cutaneous lupus, subacute cutaneous lupus, or chronic cutaneous lupus.

The oral TYK2 inhibitor deucravacitinib, for example, should be able to dampen interleukin responses in people with CLE, Dr. Fernandez said. Deucravacitinib was approved by the FDA to treat psoriasis in September 2022.

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

A phase 2 study published in 2023 focused on this agent for relief of systemic lupus. Improvements in cutaneous disease were a secondary endpoint. The trial demonstrated that the patients treated with deucravacitinib achieved a 56%-70% CLASI-50 response, depending on dosing, compared with a 17% response among those on placebo at week 48.

Based on the trial results, recruitment has begun for a phase 2 trial to evaluate deucravacitinib, compared with placebo, in patients with discoid and/or subacute cutaneous lupus. “This may be another medicine we have available to give to any of our patients with cutaneous lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.
 

Anifrolumab Appears Promising

The FDA approval of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, for treating moderate to severe SLE in July 2021, for example, is good news for dermatologists and their patients, added Dr. Fernandez. “Almost immediately after approval, case studies showed marked improvement in patients with refractory cutaneous lupus.” While the therapy was approved for treating systemic lupus, it allows for off-label treatment of the cutaneous predominant form of the disease, he said.

Furthermore, the manufacturer of anifrolumab, AstraZeneca, is launching the LAVENDER clinical trial to assess the monoclonal antibody specifically for treating CLE. “This is a big deal because we may be able to prescribe anifrolumab for our cutaneous lupus patients who don’t have systemic lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Phase 3 data supported use the of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, including the TULIP-2 trial, which demonstrated its superiority to placebo for reducing severity of systemic disease and lowering corticosteroid use. A study published in March 2023 of 11 patients showed that they had a “very fast response” to the agent, Dr. Fernandez said, with a 50% or greater improvement in the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity score reached by all participants at week 16. Improvements of 50% or more in this scoring system are considered clinically meaningful, he added.
 

Upcoming Dermatomyositis Treatments

Why highlight emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis in the same ODAC presentation? Although distinct conditions, these autoimmune conditions are both mediated by type 1 IFN inflammation.

Dermatomyositis is a relatively rare immune-mediated disease that most commonly affects the skin and muscle. Doctors score disease presentation, activity, and clinical improvements on a scale similar to CLASI for cutaneous lupus, the CDASI or Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index. Among people with CDASI activity scores of at least 14, which is the threshold for moderate to severe disease, a 20% improvement is clinically meaningful, Dr. Fernandez said. In addition, a 40% or greater improvement correlates with significant improvements in quality of life.

There is now more evidence for the use of IVIG to treat dermatomyositis. “Among those of us who treat dermatomyositis on a regular basis, we believe IVIG is the most potent treatment. We’ve known that for a long time,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Despite this tenet, for years, there was only one placebo-controlled trial, published in 1993, that evaluated IVIG treatment for dermatomyositis, and it included only 15 participants. That was until October 2022, he said, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing a specific brand of IVIG (Octagam) with placebo in 95 people with dermatomyositis.

In the study, 79% of participants treated with IVIG had a total improvement score of at least 20 (minimal improvement), the primary endpoint, at 16 weeks, compared with 44% of those receiving a placebo. Those treated with IVIG also had significant improvements in the CDASI score, a secondary endpoint, compared with those on placebo, he said.

Based on results of this trial, the FDA approved Octagam 10% for dermatomyositis in adults. Dr. Fernandez noted the approval is restricted to the brand of IVIG in the trial, not all IVIG products. However, “the FDA approval is most important to us because it gives us ammunition to fight for insurers to approve IVIG when we feel our patients with dermatomyositis need it,” regardless of the brand.
 

The Potential of JAK1 Inhibitors

An open-label study of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, published in December 2020, showed that mean changes in CDASI activity scores at 12 weeks were statistically significant compared with baseline in 10 people with dermatomyositis. “The importance of this study is that it is proof of concept that JAK inhibition can be effective for treating dermatomyositis, especially with active skin disease,” Dr. Fernandez said.

In addition, two large phase 3 trials are evaluating JAK inhibitor safety and efficacy for treating dermatomyositis. One is the VALOR trial, currently recruiting people with recalcitrant dermatomyositis to evaluate treatment with brepocitinib. Researchers in France are looking at another JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, for treating relapsing or treatment-naive dermatomyositis. Recruitment for the BIRD clinical trial is ongoing.

Monoclonal Antibody Showing Promise

“When it comes to looking specifically at dermatomyositis cutaneous disease, it’s been found that the levels of IFN beta correlate best with not only lesional skin type 1 IFN inflammatory signatures but also overall clinical disease activity,” Dr. Fernandez said. This correlation is stronger than for any other IFN-1-type cytokine active in the disorder.

“Perhaps blocking IFN beta might be best way to get control of dermatomyositis activity,” he added.

With that in mind, a phase 2 trial of dazukibart presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2023 annual meeting highlighted the promise of this agent that targets type 1 IFN beta.

The primary endpoint was improvement in CDASI at 12 weeks. “This medication has remarkable efficacy,” Dr. Fernandez said. “We were one of the sites for this trial. Despite being blinded, there was no question about who was receiving drug and who was receiving placebo.”

“A minimal clinical improvement in disease activity was seen in more than 90%, so almost every patient who received this medication had meaningful improvement,” he added.

Based on the results, the manufacturer, Pfizer, is recruiting participants for a phase 3 trial to further assess dazukibart in dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Dr. Fernandez said, “This is a story you should pay attention to if you treat any dermatomyositis patients at all.”

Regarding these emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis, “This looks very much like the early days of psoriasis, in the early 2000s, when there was a lot of activity developing treatments,” Dr. Fernandez said. “I will predict that within 10 years, we will have multiple novel agents available that will probably work better than anything we have today.”

Dr. Fernandez reported receiving grant and/or research support from Alexion, Incyte, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Priovant Therapeutics; acting as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Biogen, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and being a member of the speaker bureau or receiving honoraria for non-CME from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Monitoring inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with intestinal ultrasound (IUS) appeared to lead to earlier treatment changes and faster remission for patients, compared with conventional disease monitoring, according to a small retrospective analysis.

“Current disease monitoring tools have significant limitations,” said Noa Krugliak Cleveland, MD, director of the intestinal ultrasound program at the University of Chicago. “Intestinal ultrasound is an innovative technology that enables point-of-care assessment.”

Jordan Porter-Woodruff/University of Chicago

Dr. Cleveland presented the findings at the October 2023 American College of Gastroenterology’s annual scientific meeting in Vancouver, Canada.

The analysis was based on 30 patients with IBD in an ongoing real-world prospective study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq, Abbvie) who were not in clinical remission at week 8. For 11 patients, routine clinical care included IUS; the other 19 patients were monitored using a conventional approach.

In the study, both groups were almost evenly split in terms of diagnosis. In the IUS group, four patients had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis. In the conventional management group, six had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis.

The primary endpoint was time to treatment change.

For the secondary endpoint, the researchers defined clinical remission as a Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤ 2, or Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≤ 4, and by IUS as bowel wall thickness ≤ 3 mm in the colon or terminal ileum and no hyperemia by color Doppler signal.

The average time to treatment change in the IUS group was 1.1 days, compared with 16.6 days for the conventional management group, Dr. Cleveland reported.

The average time to clinical remission was 26.8 days for the IUS group, compared with 55.3 days for the conventional management group.

The delays in treatment change in the conventional management group were attributed to awaiting test results and endoscopy procedures, as well as communications among clinical team members.

Strength of this research project included its prospective data collection and the experienced sonographers who participated, Dr. Cleveland and colleagues said. Limitations included retrospective analysis, a small number of patients on a single therapy, and the potential for bias in patient selection. Studies of other therapies and a prospective trial are underway.

During the presentation, Dr. Cleveland commented about what kinds of treatment changes were made for patients in the study. They commonly involved extending the induction time, and, in some cases, patients were switched to another treatment, she said.

In an interview, Michael Dolinger, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said more research needs to be done to show whether IUS will improve outcomes.

“They’re showing that they make more changes sooner,” he said. “Does that actually affect and improve outcomes? That’s the big question.”

Icahn School of Medicine

Dr. Dolinger said the concept for using IUS is that it helps physicians catch disease flares earlier and respond faster with changes to the treatment plan, thus preventing the buildup of chronic bowel damage.

“That’s the concept, but that concept is actually not so proven in reality” yet, he said. “But I do believe that they’re on the right path.”

In Dr. Dolinger’s view, adding ultrasound provides a more patient-centric approach to care of people with IBD. With more traditional approaches, patients often are waiting for results of tests done outside of the visit, such as MRI.

“With ultrasound, I am walking them through the results as it’s happening in real time during the clinic visit,” Dr. Dolinger said. ”I am showing them on the screen, allowing them to ask questions. They’re telling me about their symptoms, as I’m putting the probe on where it may hurt, as I’m showing them inflammation or healing. And that changes the whole conversation.”

The study received support from the Mutchnik Family Foundation. Dr. Cleveland reported financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Neurologica, and Takeda. Her coauthors reported financial relationships with multiple drug and device makers. Dr. Dolinger said he is a consultant for Samsung’s Neurologica Corp., which makes ultrasound equipment.

Monitoring inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with intestinal ultrasound (IUS) appeared to lead to earlier treatment changes and faster remission for patients, compared with conventional disease monitoring, according to a small retrospective analysis.

“Current disease monitoring tools have significant limitations,” said Noa Krugliak Cleveland, MD, director of the intestinal ultrasound program at the University of Chicago. “Intestinal ultrasound is an innovative technology that enables point-of-care assessment.”

Jordan Porter-Woodruff/University of Chicago

Dr. Cleveland presented the findings at the October 2023 American College of Gastroenterology’s annual scientific meeting in Vancouver, Canada.

The analysis was based on 30 patients with IBD in an ongoing real-world prospective study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq, Abbvie) who were not in clinical remission at week 8. For 11 patients, routine clinical care included IUS; the other 19 patients were monitored using a conventional approach.

In the study, both groups were almost evenly split in terms of diagnosis. In the IUS group, four patients had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis. In the conventional management group, six had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis.

The primary endpoint was time to treatment change.

For the secondary endpoint, the researchers defined clinical remission as a Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤ 2, or Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≤ 4, and by IUS as bowel wall thickness ≤ 3 mm in the colon or terminal ileum and no hyperemia by color Doppler signal.

The average time to treatment change in the IUS group was 1.1 days, compared with 16.6 days for the conventional management group, Dr. Cleveland reported.

The average time to clinical remission was 26.8 days for the IUS group, compared with 55.3 days for the conventional management group.

The delays in treatment change in the conventional management group were attributed to awaiting test results and endoscopy procedures, as well as communications among clinical team members.

Strength of this research project included its prospective data collection and the experienced sonographers who participated, Dr. Cleveland and colleagues said. Limitations included retrospective analysis, a small number of patients on a single therapy, and the potential for bias in patient selection. Studies of other therapies and a prospective trial are underway.

During the presentation, Dr. Cleveland commented about what kinds of treatment changes were made for patients in the study. They commonly involved extending the induction time, and, in some cases, patients were switched to another treatment, she said.

In an interview, Michael Dolinger, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said more research needs to be done to show whether IUS will improve outcomes.

“They’re showing that they make more changes sooner,” he said. “Does that actually affect and improve outcomes? That’s the big question.”

Icahn School of Medicine

Dr. Dolinger said the concept for using IUS is that it helps physicians catch disease flares earlier and respond faster with changes to the treatment plan, thus preventing the buildup of chronic bowel damage.

“That’s the concept, but that concept is actually not so proven in reality” yet, he said. “But I do believe that they’re on the right path.”

In Dr. Dolinger’s view, adding ultrasound provides a more patient-centric approach to care of people with IBD. With more traditional approaches, patients often are waiting for results of tests done outside of the visit, such as MRI.

“With ultrasound, I am walking them through the results as it’s happening in real time during the clinic visit,” Dr. Dolinger said. ”I am showing them on the screen, allowing them to ask questions. They’re telling me about their symptoms, as I’m putting the probe on where it may hurt, as I’m showing them inflammation or healing. And that changes the whole conversation.”

The study received support from the Mutchnik Family Foundation. Dr. Cleveland reported financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Neurologica, and Takeda. Her coauthors reported financial relationships with multiple drug and device makers. Dr. Dolinger said he is a consultant for Samsung’s Neurologica Corp., which makes ultrasound equipment.

Monitoring inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with intestinal ultrasound (IUS) appeared to lead to earlier treatment changes and faster remission for patients, compared with conventional disease monitoring, according to a small retrospective analysis.

“Current disease monitoring tools have significant limitations,” said Noa Krugliak Cleveland, MD, director of the intestinal ultrasound program at the University of Chicago. “Intestinal ultrasound is an innovative technology that enables point-of-care assessment.”

Jordan Porter-Woodruff/University of Chicago

Dr. Cleveland presented the findings at the October 2023 American College of Gastroenterology’s annual scientific meeting in Vancouver, Canada.

The analysis was based on 30 patients with IBD in an ongoing real-world prospective study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq, Abbvie) who were not in clinical remission at week 8. For 11 patients, routine clinical care included IUS; the other 19 patients were monitored using a conventional approach.

In the study, both groups were almost evenly split in terms of diagnosis. In the IUS group, four patients had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis. In the conventional management group, six had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis.

The primary endpoint was time to treatment change.

For the secondary endpoint, the researchers defined clinical remission as a Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤ 2, or Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≤ 4, and by IUS as bowel wall thickness ≤ 3 mm in the colon or terminal ileum and no hyperemia by color Doppler signal.

The average time to treatment change in the IUS group was 1.1 days, compared with 16.6 days for the conventional management group, Dr. Cleveland reported.

The average time to clinical remission was 26.8 days for the IUS group, compared with 55.3 days for the conventional management group.

The delays in treatment change in the conventional management group were attributed to awaiting test results and endoscopy procedures, as well as communications among clinical team members.

Strength of this research project included its prospective data collection and the experienced sonographers who participated, Dr. Cleveland and colleagues said. Limitations included retrospective analysis, a small number of patients on a single therapy, and the potential for bias in patient selection. Studies of other therapies and a prospective trial are underway.

During the presentation, Dr. Cleveland commented about what kinds of treatment changes were made for patients in the study. They commonly involved extending the induction time, and, in some cases, patients were switched to another treatment, she said.

In an interview, Michael Dolinger, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said more research needs to be done to show whether IUS will improve outcomes.

“They’re showing that they make more changes sooner,” he said. “Does that actually affect and improve outcomes? That’s the big question.”

Icahn School of Medicine

Dr. Dolinger said the concept for using IUS is that it helps physicians catch disease flares earlier and respond faster with changes to the treatment plan, thus preventing the buildup of chronic bowel damage.

“That’s the concept, but that concept is actually not so proven in reality” yet, he said. “But I do believe that they’re on the right path.”

In Dr. Dolinger’s view, adding ultrasound provides a more patient-centric approach to care of people with IBD. With more traditional approaches, patients often are waiting for results of tests done outside of the visit, such as MRI.

“With ultrasound, I am walking them through the results as it’s happening in real time during the clinic visit,” Dr. Dolinger said. ”I am showing them on the screen, allowing them to ask questions. They’re telling me about their symptoms, as I’m putting the probe on where it may hurt, as I’m showing them inflammation or healing. And that changes the whole conversation.”

The study received support from the Mutchnik Family Foundation. Dr. Cleveland reported financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Neurologica, and Takeda. Her coauthors reported financial relationships with multiple drug and device makers. Dr. Dolinger said he is a consultant for Samsung’s Neurologica Corp., which makes ultrasound equipment.

PARIS — Should clinicians promote active surveillance for non–muscle-invasive bladder tumors (NMIBT) and establish it as a comprehensive management approach, as with prostate and kidney cancers?

During the 117th congress of the French Association of Urology (AFU), Benjamin Pradère, MD, urologic surgeon at Croix du Sud Clinic in Quint-Fonsegrives, France, advocated for this approach, suggesting that the use of biomarkers could enhance its effectiveness.

In managing precancerous lesions like NMIBT, “implementing active surveillance is a safe, cost-effective option that improves the quality of life. However, it requires careful patient selection, proper information, and relevant follow-up,” said Dr. Pradère, who is a member of the AFU Cancer Committee (CCAFU).

Low-Grade Tumors

NMIBTs are precancerous lesions and constitute 70%-80% of diagnosed bladder tumors. The remaining tumors are more severe invasive tumors that infiltrate deep tissues. NMIBTs, however, entail a high risk for recurrence (reaching 80% after endoscopic resection), as well as a high risk for progression.

As a result, the diagnosis of NMIBT involves follow-up that significantly impacts patients’ quality of life due to repeated cystoscopies and endovesical treatments. “Tumors with the most impact are low-grade Ta tumors”, with longer-term monitoring required for these low-risk tumors.

Hematuria is the most frequent clinical sign. NMIBT diagnosis occurs after endoscopic tumor resection via transurethral resection, followed by an anatomopathological analysis to determine cell grade and tumor stage. Treatment depends on the risk of recurrence and progression, as well as the risk of therapeutic failure after the initial resection.

Risk stratification distinguishes the following four levels:

• Low-risk tumors: Low-grade pTa urothelial tumors, unifocal, < 3 cm, no history of bladder tumors. Low risk of recurrence and progression.
• Intermediate-risk tumors: Other low-grade pTa urothelial tumors with no high-risk criteria. Low risk of progression but high risk of recurrence.
• High-risk tumors: Tumors with at least one risk factor: Stage pT1, high grade, presence of carcinoma in situ. High risks of progression and recurrence.
• Very high-risk tumors: Tumors combining all risk factors (pT1 grade with carcinoma in situ). Very high and early risk of progression.

“We know that low-grade NMIBTs have no impact on survival,” said Dr. Pradère. For these tumors, which represent 60% of diagnosed NMIBTs, or approximately 250,000 new cases annually in France, specific survival is > 99%, meaning that most diagnosed patients will not die of bladder cancer.

The recurrence rate for low-grade tumors is 50%, but recurrences are “almost always low-grade and rarely invade the basement membrane,” said Pradère. Implementing active surveillance to limit surgical intervention to more advanced forms seems to be relevant for these tumors.

Cystoscopy Every 3 Months

According to CCAFU recommendations, “active surveillance is a therapeutic alternative that can be proposed for patients with recurrent low-risk NMIBT after the initial diagnosis.” Criteria include low-grade pTa, fewer than five tumors, size ≤ 15 mm, negative urinary cytology, asymptomatic nature, and the patient’s acceptance of closer monitoring.

While active surveillance has become the standard treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, this therapeutic option remains marginal in bladder cancer, as in kidney cancer. The goal is to defer or avoid surgical treatment by closely monitoring the natural progression of the disease.

For NMIBTs, follow-up modalities are not yet specifically recommended because of a lack of data, said Dr. Pradère. According to a consensus, cystoscopy should be repeated every 3 months for a year and then every 6 months. Unlike standard follow-up, it includes cytology “to not miss the transition to high grade.”

CCAFU recommends discontinuing active surveillance if any of the following criteria are present:

• More than 10 lesions
• Size > 30 mm
• Positive cytology
• Symptoms (hematuria, micturition disorders, and recurring infections).

Literature on the benefits of active surveillance in bladder tumors is still limited. Only seven studies are available. Overall, for nearly 600 included patients, tumors progressed in about 12% of cases. Progression to invasive tumors occurred in 0.8% of patients (n = 5).

13 Months’ Surveillance 

According to a long-term study (median follow-up of 38 months), patients mostly exit active surveillance in the first year. The median duration of active surveillance is 13 months. Active surveillance is discontinued to surgically treat tumors that turn out to be low-grade Ta tumors in 70% of cases.

The following factors predicting recurrence and progression of tumors have been identified: Multiple tumors, early recurrence (within a year of initial diagnosis), frequent recurrence (more than one recurrence per year), tumors > 3 cm, and failure of previous endovesical treatment.

Recent studies have shown that with at least three of these recurrence and progression factors, the median duration under active surveillance is 15 months compared with 28 months in the absence of such factors. “Considering these factors, it is possible to assess the benefit of active surveillance for the patient,” said Dr. Pradère.

If active surveillance for bladder tumors is still not widely practiced, then the contribution of imaging (MRI and ultrasound) and biomarkers could promote its adoption. “The use of biomarkers should change the game and encourage active surveillance in patients with small polyps,” said Dr. Pradère.

ADXBladder Test Utility

A study highlighted the importance of evaluating minichromosome maintenance protein 5 expression during active surveillance using the ADXBladder ELISA test on a urine sample. This test is usually used in bladder cancer diagnosis.

“This study showed that a negative result in two consecutive tests during active surveillance is associated with an almost zero recurrence risk. After two negative tests, most patients do not exit active surveillance,” said Dr. Pradère. But the positive predictive value of biomarkers remains low for low-grade tumors.

The future of active surveillance in bladder cancer should involve better patient selection that relies on risk factors, enhanced modalities through imaging and biomarkers, and the advent of artificial intelligence to analyze cystoscopy results, concluded Dr. Pradère. 
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Should clinicians promote active surveillance for non–muscle-invasive bladder tumors (NMIBT) and establish it as a comprehensive management approach, as with prostate and kidney cancers?

During the 117th congress of the French Association of Urology (AFU), Benjamin Pradère, MD, urologic surgeon at Croix du Sud Clinic in Quint-Fonsegrives, France, advocated for this approach, suggesting that the use of biomarkers could enhance its effectiveness.

In managing precancerous lesions like NMIBT, “implementing active surveillance is a safe, cost-effective option that improves the quality of life. However, it requires careful patient selection, proper information, and relevant follow-up,” said Dr. Pradère, who is a member of the AFU Cancer Committee (CCAFU).

Low-Grade Tumors

NMIBTs are precancerous lesions and constitute 70%-80% of diagnosed bladder tumors. The remaining tumors are more severe invasive tumors that infiltrate deep tissues. NMIBTs, however, entail a high risk for recurrence (reaching 80% after endoscopic resection), as well as a high risk for progression.

As a result, the diagnosis of NMIBT involves follow-up that significantly impacts patients’ quality of life due to repeated cystoscopies and endovesical treatments. “Tumors with the most impact are low-grade Ta tumors”, with longer-term monitoring required for these low-risk tumors.

Hematuria is the most frequent clinical sign. NMIBT diagnosis occurs after endoscopic tumor resection via transurethral resection, followed by an anatomopathological analysis to determine cell grade and tumor stage. Treatment depends on the risk of recurrence and progression, as well as the risk of therapeutic failure after the initial resection.

Risk stratification distinguishes the following four levels:

• Low-risk tumors: Low-grade pTa urothelial tumors, unifocal, < 3 cm, no history of bladder tumors. Low risk of recurrence and progression.
• Intermediate-risk tumors: Other low-grade pTa urothelial tumors with no high-risk criteria. Low risk of progression but high risk of recurrence.
• High-risk tumors: Tumors with at least one risk factor: Stage pT1, high grade, presence of carcinoma in situ. High risks of progression and recurrence.
• Very high-risk tumors: Tumors combining all risk factors (pT1 grade with carcinoma in situ). Very high and early risk of progression.

“We know that low-grade NMIBTs have no impact on survival,” said Dr. Pradère. For these tumors, which represent 60% of diagnosed NMIBTs, or approximately 250,000 new cases annually in France, specific survival is > 99%, meaning that most diagnosed patients will not die of bladder cancer.

The recurrence rate for low-grade tumors is 50%, but recurrences are “almost always low-grade and rarely invade the basement membrane,” said Pradère. Implementing active surveillance to limit surgical intervention to more advanced forms seems to be relevant for these tumors.

Cystoscopy Every 3 Months

According to CCAFU recommendations, “active surveillance is a therapeutic alternative that can be proposed for patients with recurrent low-risk NMIBT after the initial diagnosis.” Criteria include low-grade pTa, fewer than five tumors, size ≤ 15 mm, negative urinary cytology, asymptomatic nature, and the patient’s acceptance of closer monitoring.

While active surveillance has become the standard treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, this therapeutic option remains marginal in bladder cancer, as in kidney cancer. The goal is to defer or avoid surgical treatment by closely monitoring the natural progression of the disease.

For NMIBTs, follow-up modalities are not yet specifically recommended because of a lack of data, said Dr. Pradère. According to a consensus, cystoscopy should be repeated every 3 months for a year and then every 6 months. Unlike standard follow-up, it includes cytology “to not miss the transition to high grade.”

CCAFU recommends discontinuing active surveillance if any of the following criteria are present:

• More than 10 lesions
• Size > 30 mm
• Positive cytology
• Symptoms (hematuria, micturition disorders, and recurring infections).

Literature on the benefits of active surveillance in bladder tumors is still limited. Only seven studies are available. Overall, for nearly 600 included patients, tumors progressed in about 12% of cases. Progression to invasive tumors occurred in 0.8% of patients (n = 5).

13 Months’ Surveillance 

According to a long-term study (median follow-up of 38 months), patients mostly exit active surveillance in the first year. The median duration of active surveillance is 13 months. Active surveillance is discontinued to surgically treat tumors that turn out to be low-grade Ta tumors in 70% of cases.

The following factors predicting recurrence and progression of tumors have been identified: Multiple tumors, early recurrence (within a year of initial diagnosis), frequent recurrence (more than one recurrence per year), tumors > 3 cm, and failure of previous endovesical treatment.

Recent studies have shown that with at least three of these recurrence and progression factors, the median duration under active surveillance is 15 months compared with 28 months in the absence of such factors. “Considering these factors, it is possible to assess the benefit of active surveillance for the patient,” said Dr. Pradère.

If active surveillance for bladder tumors is still not widely practiced, then the contribution of imaging (MRI and ultrasound) and biomarkers could promote its adoption. “The use of biomarkers should change the game and encourage active surveillance in patients with small polyps,” said Dr. Pradère.

ADXBladder Test Utility

A study highlighted the importance of evaluating minichromosome maintenance protein 5 expression during active surveillance using the ADXBladder ELISA test on a urine sample. This test is usually used in bladder cancer diagnosis.

“This study showed that a negative result in two consecutive tests during active surveillance is associated with an almost zero recurrence risk. After two negative tests, most patients do not exit active surveillance,” said Dr. Pradère. But the positive predictive value of biomarkers remains low for low-grade tumors.

The future of active surveillance in bladder cancer should involve better patient selection that relies on risk factors, enhanced modalities through imaging and biomarkers, and the advent of artificial intelligence to analyze cystoscopy results, concluded Dr. Pradère. 
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Should clinicians promote active surveillance for non–muscle-invasive bladder tumors (NMIBT) and establish it as a comprehensive management approach, as with prostate and kidney cancers?

During the 117th congress of the French Association of Urology (AFU), Benjamin Pradère, MD, urologic surgeon at Croix du Sud Clinic in Quint-Fonsegrives, France, advocated for this approach, suggesting that the use of biomarkers could enhance its effectiveness.

In managing precancerous lesions like NMIBT, “implementing active surveillance is a safe, cost-effective option that improves the quality of life. However, it requires careful patient selection, proper information, and relevant follow-up,” said Dr. Pradère, who is a member of the AFU Cancer Committee (CCAFU).

Low-Grade Tumors

NMIBTs are precancerous lesions and constitute 70%-80% of diagnosed bladder tumors. The remaining tumors are more severe invasive tumors that infiltrate deep tissues. NMIBTs, however, entail a high risk for recurrence (reaching 80% after endoscopic resection), as well as a high risk for progression.

As a result, the diagnosis of NMIBT involves follow-up that significantly impacts patients’ quality of life due to repeated cystoscopies and endovesical treatments. “Tumors with the most impact are low-grade Ta tumors”, with longer-term monitoring required for these low-risk tumors.

Hematuria is the most frequent clinical sign. NMIBT diagnosis occurs after endoscopic tumor resection via transurethral resection, followed by an anatomopathological analysis to determine cell grade and tumor stage. Treatment depends on the risk of recurrence and progression, as well as the risk of therapeutic failure after the initial resection.

Risk stratification distinguishes the following four levels:

• Low-risk tumors: Low-grade pTa urothelial tumors, unifocal, < 3 cm, no history of bladder tumors. Low risk of recurrence and progression.
• Intermediate-risk tumors: Other low-grade pTa urothelial tumors with no high-risk criteria. Low risk of progression but high risk of recurrence.
• High-risk tumors: Tumors with at least one risk factor: Stage pT1, high grade, presence of carcinoma in situ. High risks of progression and recurrence.
• Very high-risk tumors: Tumors combining all risk factors (pT1 grade with carcinoma in situ). Very high and early risk of progression.

“We know that low-grade NMIBTs have no impact on survival,” said Dr. Pradère. For these tumors, which represent 60% of diagnosed NMIBTs, or approximately 250,000 new cases annually in France, specific survival is > 99%, meaning that most diagnosed patients will not die of bladder cancer.

The recurrence rate for low-grade tumors is 50%, but recurrences are “almost always low-grade and rarely invade the basement membrane,” said Pradère. Implementing active surveillance to limit surgical intervention to more advanced forms seems to be relevant for these tumors.

Cystoscopy Every 3 Months

According to CCAFU recommendations, “active surveillance is a therapeutic alternative that can be proposed for patients with recurrent low-risk NMIBT after the initial diagnosis.” Criteria include low-grade pTa, fewer than five tumors, size ≤ 15 mm, negative urinary cytology, asymptomatic nature, and the patient’s acceptance of closer monitoring.

While active surveillance has become the standard treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, this therapeutic option remains marginal in bladder cancer, as in kidney cancer. The goal is to defer or avoid surgical treatment by closely monitoring the natural progression of the disease.

For NMIBTs, follow-up modalities are not yet specifically recommended because of a lack of data, said Dr. Pradère. According to a consensus, cystoscopy should be repeated every 3 months for a year and then every 6 months. Unlike standard follow-up, it includes cytology “to not miss the transition to high grade.”

CCAFU recommends discontinuing active surveillance if any of the following criteria are present:

• More than 10 lesions
• Size > 30 mm
• Positive cytology
• Symptoms (hematuria, micturition disorders, and recurring infections).

Literature on the benefits of active surveillance in bladder tumors is still limited. Only seven studies are available. Overall, for nearly 600 included patients, tumors progressed in about 12% of cases. Progression to invasive tumors occurred in 0.8% of patients (n = 5).

13 Months’ Surveillance 

According to a long-term study (median follow-up of 38 months), patients mostly exit active surveillance in the first year. The median duration of active surveillance is 13 months. Active surveillance is discontinued to surgically treat tumors that turn out to be low-grade Ta tumors in 70% of cases.

The following factors predicting recurrence and progression of tumors have been identified: Multiple tumors, early recurrence (within a year of initial diagnosis), frequent recurrence (more than one recurrence per year), tumors > 3 cm, and failure of previous endovesical treatment.

Recent studies have shown that with at least three of these recurrence and progression factors, the median duration under active surveillance is 15 months compared with 28 months in the absence of such factors. “Considering these factors, it is possible to assess the benefit of active surveillance for the patient,” said Dr. Pradère.

If active surveillance for bladder tumors is still not widely practiced, then the contribution of imaging (MRI and ultrasound) and biomarkers could promote its adoption. “The use of biomarkers should change the game and encourage active surveillance in patients with small polyps,” said Dr. Pradère.

ADXBladder Test Utility

A study highlighted the importance of evaluating minichromosome maintenance protein 5 expression during active surveillance using the ADXBladder ELISA test on a urine sample. This test is usually used in bladder cancer diagnosis.

“This study showed that a negative result in two consecutive tests during active surveillance is associated with an almost zero recurrence risk. After two negative tests, most patients do not exit active surveillance,” said Dr. Pradère. But the positive predictive value of biomarkers remains low for low-grade tumors.

The future of active surveillance in bladder cancer should involve better patient selection that relies on risk factors, enhanced modalities through imaging and biomarkers, and the advent of artificial intelligence to analyze cystoscopy results, concluded Dr. Pradère. 
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Although treatment of advanced gastroesophageal cancer is increasingly dependent on biomarkers, only about 40% of patients are tested.

For patients to fully benefit from the latest targeted therapies, biomarker testing needs to improve, explained Yelena Janjigian, MD, chief of gastrointestinal oncology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

“The biomarker revolution in this disease has been quite remarkable in the last 10 years, so it’s very important to routinely test for these biomarkers,” Dr. Janjigian said in a presentation at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Dr. Janjigian suspected that inertia and logistics are the main reasons biomarker testing rates have lagged. “Even at tertiary cancer centers like ours, we fall short,” she said. For practices that don’t see many patients with gastroesophageal cancer, the rates are probably worse.

Biomarker testing, however, is readily available, Dr. Janjigian said, and overall, it’s about “being obsessive about doing it and following up on it and training your staff.”

As for how to prioritize biomarker testing for treatment selection, Dr. Janjigian provided her top three picks.

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is the most important biomarker, followed by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) as well as tumors expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) with a combined positive score (CPS) of 5 or higher.

Claudin 18.2 testing is “a great newcomer” worth mentioning as well, she noted. Claudin 18.2 is “very druggable,” and several claudin-targeting drugs are currently being assessed, including zolbetuximab.

MSI testing earned the top spot for Dr. Janjigian given the overall survival results from the CHECKMATE 649 trial.

The trial, which Dr. Janjigian led, assessed treatment with first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Median overall survival among the small subset of patients with high MSI who received nivolumab plus chemotherapy (n = 23) was more than three times longer than that among those who received chemotherapy alone (n = 21) — 38.7 months vs 12.3 months. Median overall survival was not reached in patients with high MSI who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab at the trial’s 36-month follow-up.

Dr. Janjigian’s case for a PD-L1 CPS of 5 or higher also came, in part, from the CHECKMATE 649 trial. In a subgroup analysis, patients with a CPS of 5 or higher receiving nivolumab plus chemotherapy had a significantly higher median overall survival of 14.4 months vs 11.1 months with chemotherapy alone.

Dr. Janjigian made the case for HER2 testing based on outcomes from the KEYNOTE 811 trial.

This trial, also led by Dr. Janjigian, randomized HER2-positive patients with unresectable advanced gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma irrespective of PDL-1 status to pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy or trastuzumab and chemotherapy alone.

Past studies have reported that targeting HER2 by itself is not a good idea, Dr. Janjigian said, but this trial demonstrated that dual PD-L1/HER2 blockade improves survival outcomes.

Median overall survival in HER2-positive patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or more was 20.0 months vs 15.7 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98) compared with 20.0 vs 16.8 months in the overall cohort (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.01). However, patients with PD-L1 CPS below 1 showed limited benefit from pembrolizumab (HR, 1.41 for overall survival; 95% CI, 0.90-2.20).

To take advantage of the benefit, HER2 testing is “critical,” Dr. Janjigian said.

Overall, when it comes to targeted therapy for advanced disease, the evolution has been rapid. But “we are not done yet,” she said. “We need to be smarter about patient selection” by using biomarker testing.

Dr. Janjigian reported a range of industry ties, including travel expenses, honoraria, and research funding from nivolumab maker Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab. She also advises both companies.

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

Although treatment of advanced gastroesophageal cancer is increasingly dependent on biomarkers, only about 40% of patients are tested.

For patients to fully benefit from the latest targeted therapies, biomarker testing needs to improve, explained Yelena Janjigian, MD, chief of gastrointestinal oncology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

“The biomarker revolution in this disease has been quite remarkable in the last 10 years, so it’s very important to routinely test for these biomarkers,” Dr. Janjigian said in a presentation at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Dr. Janjigian suspected that inertia and logistics are the main reasons biomarker testing rates have lagged. “Even at tertiary cancer centers like ours, we fall short,” she said. For practices that don’t see many patients with gastroesophageal cancer, the rates are probably worse.

Biomarker testing, however, is readily available, Dr. Janjigian said, and overall, it’s about “being obsessive about doing it and following up on it and training your staff.”

As for how to prioritize biomarker testing for treatment selection, Dr. Janjigian provided her top three picks.

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is the most important biomarker, followed by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) as well as tumors expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) with a combined positive score (CPS) of 5 or higher.

Claudin 18.2 testing is “a great newcomer” worth mentioning as well, she noted. Claudin 18.2 is “very druggable,” and several claudin-targeting drugs are currently being assessed, including zolbetuximab.

MSI testing earned the top spot for Dr. Janjigian given the overall survival results from the CHECKMATE 649 trial.

The trial, which Dr. Janjigian led, assessed treatment with first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Median overall survival among the small subset of patients with high MSI who received nivolumab plus chemotherapy (n = 23) was more than three times longer than that among those who received chemotherapy alone (n = 21) — 38.7 months vs 12.3 months. Median overall survival was not reached in patients with high MSI who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab at the trial’s 36-month follow-up.

Dr. Janjigian’s case for a PD-L1 CPS of 5 or higher also came, in part, from the CHECKMATE 649 trial. In a subgroup analysis, patients with a CPS of 5 or higher receiving nivolumab plus chemotherapy had a significantly higher median overall survival of 14.4 months vs 11.1 months with chemotherapy alone.

Dr. Janjigian made the case for HER2 testing based on outcomes from the KEYNOTE 811 trial.

This trial, also led by Dr. Janjigian, randomized HER2-positive patients with unresectable advanced gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma irrespective of PDL-1 status to pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy or trastuzumab and chemotherapy alone.

Past studies have reported that targeting HER2 by itself is not a good idea, Dr. Janjigian said, but this trial demonstrated that dual PD-L1/HER2 blockade improves survival outcomes.

Median overall survival in HER2-positive patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or more was 20.0 months vs 15.7 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98) compared with 20.0 vs 16.8 months in the overall cohort (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.01). However, patients with PD-L1 CPS below 1 showed limited benefit from pembrolizumab (HR, 1.41 for overall survival; 95% CI, 0.90-2.20).

To take advantage of the benefit, HER2 testing is “critical,” Dr. Janjigian said.

Overall, when it comes to targeted therapy for advanced disease, the evolution has been rapid. But “we are not done yet,” she said. “We need to be smarter about patient selection” by using biomarker testing.

Dr. Janjigian reported a range of industry ties, including travel expenses, honoraria, and research funding from nivolumab maker Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab. She also advises both companies.

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

Although treatment of advanced gastroesophageal cancer is increasingly dependent on biomarkers, only about 40% of patients are tested.

For patients to fully benefit from the latest targeted therapies, biomarker testing needs to improve, explained Yelena Janjigian, MD, chief of gastrointestinal oncology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

“The biomarker revolution in this disease has been quite remarkable in the last 10 years, so it’s very important to routinely test for these biomarkers,” Dr. Janjigian said in a presentation at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Dr. Janjigian suspected that inertia and logistics are the main reasons biomarker testing rates have lagged. “Even at tertiary cancer centers like ours, we fall short,” she said. For practices that don’t see many patients with gastroesophageal cancer, the rates are probably worse.

Biomarker testing, however, is readily available, Dr. Janjigian said, and overall, it’s about “being obsessive about doing it and following up on it and training your staff.”

As for how to prioritize biomarker testing for treatment selection, Dr. Janjigian provided her top three picks.

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is the most important biomarker, followed by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) as well as tumors expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) with a combined positive score (CPS) of 5 or higher.

Claudin 18.2 testing is “a great newcomer” worth mentioning as well, she noted. Claudin 18.2 is “very druggable,” and several claudin-targeting drugs are currently being assessed, including zolbetuximab.

MSI testing earned the top spot for Dr. Janjigian given the overall survival results from the CHECKMATE 649 trial.

The trial, which Dr. Janjigian led, assessed treatment with first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Median overall survival among the small subset of patients with high MSI who received nivolumab plus chemotherapy (n = 23) was more than three times longer than that among those who received chemotherapy alone (n = 21) — 38.7 months vs 12.3 months. Median overall survival was not reached in patients with high MSI who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab at the trial’s 36-month follow-up.

Dr. Janjigian’s case for a PD-L1 CPS of 5 or higher also came, in part, from the CHECKMATE 649 trial. In a subgroup analysis, patients with a CPS of 5 or higher receiving nivolumab plus chemotherapy had a significantly higher median overall survival of 14.4 months vs 11.1 months with chemotherapy alone.

Dr. Janjigian made the case for HER2 testing based on outcomes from the KEYNOTE 811 trial.

This trial, also led by Dr. Janjigian, randomized HER2-positive patients with unresectable advanced gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma irrespective of PDL-1 status to pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy or trastuzumab and chemotherapy alone.

Past studies have reported that targeting HER2 by itself is not a good idea, Dr. Janjigian said, but this trial demonstrated that dual PD-L1/HER2 blockade improves survival outcomes.

Median overall survival in HER2-positive patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or more was 20.0 months vs 15.7 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98) compared with 20.0 vs 16.8 months in the overall cohort (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.01). However, patients with PD-L1 CPS below 1 showed limited benefit from pembrolizumab (HR, 1.41 for overall survival; 95% CI, 0.90-2.20).

To take advantage of the benefit, HER2 testing is “critical,” Dr. Janjigian said.

Overall, when it comes to targeted therapy for advanced disease, the evolution has been rapid. But “we are not done yet,” she said. “We need to be smarter about patient selection” by using biomarker testing.

Dr. Janjigian reported a range of industry ties, including travel expenses, honoraria, and research funding from nivolumab maker Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck, the maker of pembrolizumab. She also advises both companies.

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

Renewed interest in hepatic arterial chemotherapy infusion pumps may be on the horizon, given promising overall survival findings in patients with advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma.

Dutch investigators reported a 3-year overall survival of 33% in patients with advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma confined to the liver who received the infusion chemotherapy vs 3% in historical controls treated with standard systemic gemcitabine/cisplatin.

The response with the pump is “clearly superior” to systemic treatment, said investigator Bas Groot Koerkamp, MD, who presented the findings at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

“I do share the enthusiasm of my colleagues about immunotherapy and targeted treatments for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma,” said Dr. Koerkamp, a hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeon at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. But “none of these treatments has shown a 3-year overall survival of one in three with advanced disease.”

The hepatic arterial infusion pump, a hockey puck-sized device that essentially bathes liver tumors in floxuridine for about 2 weeks, is not a new technology. The pump has been around since at least the 1990s, developed largely at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, where Dr. Koerkamp trained.

Three previous small studies in cholangiocarcinoma reported outcomes similar to Dr. Koerkamp’s. Despite the strong survival outcomes, uptake of these pumps has lagged.

A key reason is likely the lack of phase 3 trials evaluating the technology, Laleh Melstrom, MD, chief of surgical oncology at City of Hope, outside of Los Angeles, Duarte, California, told this news organization.

Dr. Melstrom, who moderated Dr. Koerkamp’s presentation, also noted that using the pump requires special attention to bilirubin levels to prevent biliary toxicity and knowledge of pump placement.

The pump, placed subcutaneously on one side of the lower abdomen, is connected to a side branch of the hepatic artery and then filled with the chemotherapy agent floxuridine. Delivering floxuridine directly to the hepatic artery increases liver lesion exposure 200-fold over systemic delivery. The pump needs to be refilled after 2 weeks.

“It’s not difficult to place the pump, even doing it robotically,” which was how it was placed in over 40% of patients in the study, Dr. Koerkamp said.

As for biliary toxicity, only one patient in the current study developed biliary sclerosis, which was easily handled with a stent. “You just put in a stent and continue,” Dr. Koerkamp said.

The current single-arm phase 2 study included 50 patients implanted with the hepatic pump at three centers in the Netherlands. All patients had advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma confined to the liver.

Ultimately, 48 of 50 patients received treatment after one patient died of unrelated causes and another had an arterial dissection.

Overall, 38 received gemcitabine/cisplatin concurrently, and the remaining had the pump treatment alone, having already received the systemic combination. Most (84%) received at least four cycles of chemotherapy infusion.

Almost half of patients (46%) had a partial response to treatment, and 88% exhibited disease control at 6 months. Four patients who responded underwent a liver resection, one of whom had a complete pathologic response.

Median overall survival was 22 months vs 12 months in historical controls. One-year median overall survival was 80% in the treatment group vs 47% in controls, and 3-year median overall survival was 33% in the pump group vs 3% in controls.

An audience member noted that similar results have been reported for transarterial Yttrium-90 radioembolization, another and newer option to treat intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

“The Y90 results are quite impressive,” Dr. Koerkamp said, adding that he’d like to see a head-to-head comparison.

“The main advantage of the pump is that it treats the entire liver,” as opposed to one lesion at a time, “so if you have 10 lesions [the pump] makes a lot more sense,” he said.

There is “definitely a movement” to “reinvigorate” the hepatic artery infusion pump approach, Dr. Melstrom said.

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. Dr. Koerkamp disclosed research funding from Tricumed, a maker of implantable infusion pumps. Dr. Melstrom didn’t have any disclosures.

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

Renewed interest in hepatic arterial chemotherapy infusion pumps may be on the horizon, given promising overall survival findings in patients with advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma.

Dutch investigators reported a 3-year overall survival of 33% in patients with advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma confined to the liver who received the infusion chemotherapy vs 3% in historical controls treated with standard systemic gemcitabine/cisplatin.

The response with the pump is “clearly superior” to systemic treatment, said investigator Bas Groot Koerkamp, MD, who presented the findings at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

“I do share the enthusiasm of my colleagues about immunotherapy and targeted treatments for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma,” said Dr. Koerkamp, a hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeon at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. But “none of these treatments has shown a 3-year overall survival of one in three with advanced disease.”

The hepatic arterial infusion pump, a hockey puck-sized device that essentially bathes liver tumors in floxuridine for about 2 weeks, is not a new technology. The pump has been around since at least the 1990s, developed largely at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, where Dr. Koerkamp trained.

Three previous small studies in cholangiocarcinoma reported outcomes similar to Dr. Koerkamp’s. Despite the strong survival outcomes, uptake of these pumps has lagged.

A key reason is likely the lack of phase 3 trials evaluating the technology, Laleh Melstrom, MD, chief of surgical oncology at City of Hope, outside of Los Angeles, Duarte, California, told this news organization.

Dr. Melstrom, who moderated Dr. Koerkamp’s presentation, also noted that using the pump requires special attention to bilirubin levels to prevent biliary toxicity and knowledge of pump placement.

The pump, placed subcutaneously on one side of the lower abdomen, is connected to a side branch of the hepatic artery and then filled with the chemotherapy agent floxuridine. Delivering floxuridine directly to the hepatic artery increases liver lesion exposure 200-fold over systemic delivery. The pump needs to be refilled after 2 weeks.

“It’s not difficult to place the pump, even doing it robotically,” which was how it was placed in over 40% of patients in the study, Dr. Koerkamp said.

As for biliary toxicity, only one patient in the current study developed biliary sclerosis, which was easily handled with a stent. “You just put in a stent and continue,” Dr. Koerkamp said.

The current single-arm phase 2 study included 50 patients implanted with the hepatic pump at three centers in the Netherlands. All patients had advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma confined to the liver.

Ultimately, 48 of 50 patients received treatment after one patient died of unrelated causes and another had an arterial dissection.

Overall, 38 received gemcitabine/cisplatin concurrently, and the remaining had the pump treatment alone, having already received the systemic combination. Most (84%) received at least four cycles of chemotherapy infusion.

Almost half of patients (46%) had a partial response to treatment, and 88% exhibited disease control at 6 months. Four patients who responded underwent a liver resection, one of whom had a complete pathologic response.

Median overall survival was 22 months vs 12 months in historical controls. One-year median overall survival was 80% in the treatment group vs 47% in controls, and 3-year median overall survival was 33% in the pump group vs 3% in controls.

An audience member noted that similar results have been reported for transarterial Yttrium-90 radioembolization, another and newer option to treat intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

“The Y90 results are quite impressive,” Dr. Koerkamp said, adding that he’d like to see a head-to-head comparison.

“The main advantage of the pump is that it treats the entire liver,” as opposed to one lesion at a time, “so if you have 10 lesions [the pump] makes a lot more sense,” he said.

There is “definitely a movement” to “reinvigorate” the hepatic artery infusion pump approach, Dr. Melstrom said.

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. Dr. Koerkamp disclosed research funding from Tricumed, a maker of implantable infusion pumps. Dr. Melstrom didn’t have any disclosures.

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

Renewed interest in hepatic arterial chemotherapy infusion pumps may be on the horizon, given promising overall survival findings in patients with advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma.

Dutch investigators reported a 3-year overall survival of 33% in patients with advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma confined to the liver who received the infusion chemotherapy vs 3% in historical controls treated with standard systemic gemcitabine/cisplatin.

The response with the pump is “clearly superior” to systemic treatment, said investigator Bas Groot Koerkamp, MD, who presented the findings at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

“I do share the enthusiasm of my colleagues about immunotherapy and targeted treatments for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma,” said Dr. Koerkamp, a hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeon at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. But “none of these treatments has shown a 3-year overall survival of one in three with advanced disease.”

The hepatic arterial infusion pump, a hockey puck-sized device that essentially bathes liver tumors in floxuridine for about 2 weeks, is not a new technology. The pump has been around since at least the 1990s, developed largely at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, where Dr. Koerkamp trained.

Three previous small studies in cholangiocarcinoma reported outcomes similar to Dr. Koerkamp’s. Despite the strong survival outcomes, uptake of these pumps has lagged.

A key reason is likely the lack of phase 3 trials evaluating the technology, Laleh Melstrom, MD, chief of surgical oncology at City of Hope, outside of Los Angeles, Duarte, California, told this news organization.

Dr. Melstrom, who moderated Dr. Koerkamp’s presentation, also noted that using the pump requires special attention to bilirubin levels to prevent biliary toxicity and knowledge of pump placement.

The pump, placed subcutaneously on one side of the lower abdomen, is connected to a side branch of the hepatic artery and then filled with the chemotherapy agent floxuridine. Delivering floxuridine directly to the hepatic artery increases liver lesion exposure 200-fold over systemic delivery. The pump needs to be refilled after 2 weeks.

“It’s not difficult to place the pump, even doing it robotically,” which was how it was placed in over 40% of patients in the study, Dr. Koerkamp said.

As for biliary toxicity, only one patient in the current study developed biliary sclerosis, which was easily handled with a stent. “You just put in a stent and continue,” Dr. Koerkamp said.

The current single-arm phase 2 study included 50 patients implanted with the hepatic pump at three centers in the Netherlands. All patients had advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma confined to the liver.

Ultimately, 48 of 50 patients received treatment after one patient died of unrelated causes and another had an arterial dissection.

Overall, 38 received gemcitabine/cisplatin concurrently, and the remaining had the pump treatment alone, having already received the systemic combination. Most (84%) received at least four cycles of chemotherapy infusion.

Almost half of patients (46%) had a partial response to treatment, and 88% exhibited disease control at 6 months. Four patients who responded underwent a liver resection, one of whom had a complete pathologic response.

Median overall survival was 22 months vs 12 months in historical controls. One-year median overall survival was 80% in the treatment group vs 47% in controls, and 3-year median overall survival was 33% in the pump group vs 3% in controls.

An audience member noted that similar results have been reported for transarterial Yttrium-90 radioembolization, another and newer option to treat intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

“The Y90 results are quite impressive,” Dr. Koerkamp said, adding that he’d like to see a head-to-head comparison.

“The main advantage of the pump is that it treats the entire liver,” as opposed to one lesion at a time, “so if you have 10 lesions [the pump] makes a lot more sense,” he said.

There is “definitely a movement” to “reinvigorate” the hepatic artery infusion pump approach, Dr. Melstrom said.

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. Dr. Koerkamp disclosed research funding from Tricumed, a maker of implantable infusion pumps. Dr. Melstrom didn’t have any disclosures.

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

In patients with colorectal cancer bearing the KRAS G12C mutation, a combination of the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) G12C inhibitor sotorasib and the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor panitumumab led to an improvement in quality of life (QoL) measures compared with standard therapy.

Dominik Modest, MD, presented these new results of the phase 3 CodeBreaK 300 trial at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The KRAS G12C mutation occurs in 3%-4% of metastatic colorectal cancer cases, according to Dr. Modest and the other authors of a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine describing the primary outcome of the trial. The study included 160 patients who were randomized to once daily sotorasib (960 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto960), once daily sotorasib (240 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto240), or investigator’s choice of trifluridine–tipiracil or regorafenib.

The December 2023 paper described improvements in median progression-free survival, progression or death, and objective response (OR). The authors described statistically significant improvements in disease progression or death in the Soto960 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P = .006) and the Soto240 group (HR, 0.58; P = .03). The objective response rate was highest in the Soto960 group (26.4%; 95% CI, 15.3%-40.3%), followed by the Soto240 group (5.7%; 95% CI, 1.2%-15.7%), and the control group (0%; 95% CI, 0.0%-6.6%). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were generally similar at 35.8% (Soto960), 30.2% (Soto240), and 43.1% (control) in each group. The most common adverse events associated with sotorasib-panitumumab were skin-related toxicity and hypomagnesemia.

The new analysis showed that both doses of sotorasib also improved patient-reported outcomes from baseline to week 8, Dr. Modest, professor of medicine at Charité University of Medicine in Berlin, said at the meeting.

Compared with the chemotherapy group, there were statistically significant differences in least square mean change from baseline to week 8 for: pain at its worst in the Soto240 group (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI], –1.18; 95% CI, –2.05 to –0.32) and the Soto960 group (BPI, –1.49; 95% CI, –2.36 to –0.61); and physical functioning, as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core 30-item Quality of Life questionnaire, in the Soto240 (7.95; 95% CI, 2.39-13.51) and Soto960 (6.73; 95% CI, 1.05-12.41) groups. Nearly all other measures trended toward favoring the sotorasib/panitumumab groups, but did not reach statistical significance. A similar pattern was seen in time to deterioration measures. Among adverse events, diarrhea trended toward being more frequent in the intervention arms.

At week 9, 63% of patients in Soto960 and 84% in Soto240 reported improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGI-C), versus 37% in the chemotherapy arm. At week 17, the percentages were 77%, 59%, and 21%, respectively.

“The clinical benefits and the better quality of life outcomes associated with sotorasib at the high dose of 960 milligrams plus panitumumab establishes this combination as a potential new standard [therapy] for patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C mutant colorectal cancer, and I think it’s quite reassuring that even if you compare two active drugs versus one active drug, this does not necessarily translate into impaired quality of life assessments by the patients,” Dr. Modest said during his presentation.

CodeBreaK 300 may point the way to other dual therapies involving kinase inhibitors, according to Rona Yaeger, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial to the NEJM paper. Dr. Yaeger noted that clinical and preclinical studies had shown that targeted oncogenes like KRAS G12C and BRAF V600E alone would be insufficient in colorectal cancer.

When combined with KRAS G12C inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors prevent EGFR from participating in negative feedback loops that can otherwise lead to drug resistance. “Whether targeting [receptor tyrosine kinases like EGFR] in epithelial tumors other than those associated with colorectal cancers would improve the incidence of response to KRAS G12C inhibitors remains unknown,” wrote Dr. Yaeger, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. There is an ongoing clinical trial evaluating KRAS G12C inhibitors combined with EGFR antibodies in both lung and pancreatic cancer.

She noted that colorectal tumors have high levels of receptor tyrosine kinases, and argued that this will require higher doses of KRAS G12C inhibitors or novel drugs with higher activity. This is supported by the higher frequency of response and longer PFS at the higher dose in CodeBreaK 300, but could present a challenge: “Lowering the drug dose to manage toxic effects may limit the efficacy of the drug against some cancers,” she wrote.

Dr. Yaeger highlighted the KRYSTAL-10 phase 3 randomized trial, which is assessing the KRAS G12C inhibitor adagrasib in combination with the EGFR antibody cetuximab versus chemotherapy in advanced solid tumors with the KRAS G12C mutation.

“The CodeBreaK 300 trial is an exciting first step for targeting KRAS in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Yaeger wrote.

Dr. Modest has financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Lily, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SERVIER. Dr. Yaeger has financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Mirati, Pfizer, and Zai Lab.

In patients with colorectal cancer bearing the KRAS G12C mutation, a combination of the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) G12C inhibitor sotorasib and the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor panitumumab led to an improvement in quality of life (QoL) measures compared with standard therapy.

Dominik Modest, MD, presented these new results of the phase 3 CodeBreaK 300 trial at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The KRAS G12C mutation occurs in 3%-4% of metastatic colorectal cancer cases, according to Dr. Modest and the other authors of a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine describing the primary outcome of the trial. The study included 160 patients who were randomized to once daily sotorasib (960 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto960), once daily sotorasib (240 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto240), or investigator’s choice of trifluridine–tipiracil or regorafenib.

The December 2023 paper described improvements in median progression-free survival, progression or death, and objective response (OR). The authors described statistically significant improvements in disease progression or death in the Soto960 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P = .006) and the Soto240 group (HR, 0.58; P = .03). The objective response rate was highest in the Soto960 group (26.4%; 95% CI, 15.3%-40.3%), followed by the Soto240 group (5.7%; 95% CI, 1.2%-15.7%), and the control group (0%; 95% CI, 0.0%-6.6%). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were generally similar at 35.8% (Soto960), 30.2% (Soto240), and 43.1% (control) in each group. The most common adverse events associated with sotorasib-panitumumab were skin-related toxicity and hypomagnesemia.

The new analysis showed that both doses of sotorasib also improved patient-reported outcomes from baseline to week 8, Dr. Modest, professor of medicine at Charité University of Medicine in Berlin, said at the meeting.

Compared with the chemotherapy group, there were statistically significant differences in least square mean change from baseline to week 8 for: pain at its worst in the Soto240 group (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI], –1.18; 95% CI, –2.05 to –0.32) and the Soto960 group (BPI, –1.49; 95% CI, –2.36 to –0.61); and physical functioning, as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core 30-item Quality of Life questionnaire, in the Soto240 (7.95; 95% CI, 2.39-13.51) and Soto960 (6.73; 95% CI, 1.05-12.41) groups. Nearly all other measures trended toward favoring the sotorasib/panitumumab groups, but did not reach statistical significance. A similar pattern was seen in time to deterioration measures. Among adverse events, diarrhea trended toward being more frequent in the intervention arms.

At week 9, 63% of patients in Soto960 and 84% in Soto240 reported improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGI-C), versus 37% in the chemotherapy arm. At week 17, the percentages were 77%, 59%, and 21%, respectively.

“The clinical benefits and the better quality of life outcomes associated with sotorasib at the high dose of 960 milligrams plus panitumumab establishes this combination as a potential new standard [therapy] for patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C mutant colorectal cancer, and I think it’s quite reassuring that even if you compare two active drugs versus one active drug, this does not necessarily translate into impaired quality of life assessments by the patients,” Dr. Modest said during his presentation.

CodeBreaK 300 may point the way to other dual therapies involving kinase inhibitors, according to Rona Yaeger, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial to the NEJM paper. Dr. Yaeger noted that clinical and preclinical studies had shown that targeted oncogenes like KRAS G12C and BRAF V600E alone would be insufficient in colorectal cancer.

When combined with KRAS G12C inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors prevent EGFR from participating in negative feedback loops that can otherwise lead to drug resistance. “Whether targeting [receptor tyrosine kinases like EGFR] in epithelial tumors other than those associated with colorectal cancers would improve the incidence of response to KRAS G12C inhibitors remains unknown,” wrote Dr. Yaeger, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. There is an ongoing clinical trial evaluating KRAS G12C inhibitors combined with EGFR antibodies in both lung and pancreatic cancer.

She noted that colorectal tumors have high levels of receptor tyrosine kinases, and argued that this will require higher doses of KRAS G12C inhibitors or novel drugs with higher activity. This is supported by the higher frequency of response and longer PFS at the higher dose in CodeBreaK 300, but could present a challenge: “Lowering the drug dose to manage toxic effects may limit the efficacy of the drug against some cancers,” she wrote.

Dr. Yaeger highlighted the KRYSTAL-10 phase 3 randomized trial, which is assessing the KRAS G12C inhibitor adagrasib in combination with the EGFR antibody cetuximab versus chemotherapy in advanced solid tumors with the KRAS G12C mutation.

“The CodeBreaK 300 trial is an exciting first step for targeting KRAS in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Yaeger wrote.

Dr. Modest has financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Lily, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SERVIER. Dr. Yaeger has financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Mirati, Pfizer, and Zai Lab.

In patients with colorectal cancer bearing the KRAS G12C mutation, a combination of the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) G12C inhibitor sotorasib and the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor panitumumab led to an improvement in quality of life (QoL) measures compared with standard therapy.

Dominik Modest, MD, presented these new results of the phase 3 CodeBreaK 300 trial at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The KRAS G12C mutation occurs in 3%-4% of metastatic colorectal cancer cases, according to Dr. Modest and the other authors of a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine describing the primary outcome of the trial. The study included 160 patients who were randomized to once daily sotorasib (960 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto960), once daily sotorasib (240 mg) plus panitumumab (Soto240), or investigator’s choice of trifluridine–tipiracil or regorafenib.

The December 2023 paper described improvements in median progression-free survival, progression or death, and objective response (OR). The authors described statistically significant improvements in disease progression or death in the Soto960 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P = .006) and the Soto240 group (HR, 0.58; P = .03). The objective response rate was highest in the Soto960 group (26.4%; 95% CI, 15.3%-40.3%), followed by the Soto240 group (5.7%; 95% CI, 1.2%-15.7%), and the control group (0%; 95% CI, 0.0%-6.6%). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were generally similar at 35.8% (Soto960), 30.2% (Soto240), and 43.1% (control) in each group. The most common adverse events associated with sotorasib-panitumumab were skin-related toxicity and hypomagnesemia.

The new analysis showed that both doses of sotorasib also improved patient-reported outcomes from baseline to week 8, Dr. Modest, professor of medicine at Charité University of Medicine in Berlin, said at the meeting.

Compared with the chemotherapy group, there were statistically significant differences in least square mean change from baseline to week 8 for: pain at its worst in the Soto240 group (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI], –1.18; 95% CI, –2.05 to –0.32) and the Soto960 group (BPI, –1.49; 95% CI, –2.36 to –0.61); and physical functioning, as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core 30-item Quality of Life questionnaire, in the Soto240 (7.95; 95% CI, 2.39-13.51) and Soto960 (6.73; 95% CI, 1.05-12.41) groups. Nearly all other measures trended toward favoring the sotorasib/panitumumab groups, but did not reach statistical significance. A similar pattern was seen in time to deterioration measures. Among adverse events, diarrhea trended toward being more frequent in the intervention arms.

At week 9, 63% of patients in Soto960 and 84% in Soto240 reported improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGI-C), versus 37% in the chemotherapy arm. At week 17, the percentages were 77%, 59%, and 21%, respectively.

“The clinical benefits and the better quality of life outcomes associated with sotorasib at the high dose of 960 milligrams plus panitumumab establishes this combination as a potential new standard [therapy] for patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C mutant colorectal cancer, and I think it’s quite reassuring that even if you compare two active drugs versus one active drug, this does not necessarily translate into impaired quality of life assessments by the patients,” Dr. Modest said during his presentation.

CodeBreaK 300 may point the way to other dual therapies involving kinase inhibitors, according to Rona Yaeger, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial to the NEJM paper. Dr. Yaeger noted that clinical and preclinical studies had shown that targeted oncogenes like KRAS G12C and BRAF V600E alone would be insufficient in colorectal cancer.

When combined with KRAS G12C inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors prevent EGFR from participating in negative feedback loops that can otherwise lead to drug resistance. “Whether targeting [receptor tyrosine kinases like EGFR] in epithelial tumors other than those associated with colorectal cancers would improve the incidence of response to KRAS G12C inhibitors remains unknown,” wrote Dr. Yaeger, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. There is an ongoing clinical trial evaluating KRAS G12C inhibitors combined with EGFR antibodies in both lung and pancreatic cancer.

She noted that colorectal tumors have high levels of receptor tyrosine kinases, and argued that this will require higher doses of KRAS G12C inhibitors or novel drugs with higher activity. This is supported by the higher frequency of response and longer PFS at the higher dose in CodeBreaK 300, but could present a challenge: “Lowering the drug dose to manage toxic effects may limit the efficacy of the drug against some cancers,” she wrote.

Dr. Yaeger highlighted the KRYSTAL-10 phase 3 randomized trial, which is assessing the KRAS G12C inhibitor adagrasib in combination with the EGFR antibody cetuximab versus chemotherapy in advanced solid tumors with the KRAS G12C mutation.

“The CodeBreaK 300 trial is an exciting first step for targeting KRAS in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Yaeger wrote.

Dr. Modest has financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Lily, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SERVIER. Dr. Yaeger has financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Mirati, Pfizer, and Zai Lab.

SAN FRANCISCO — The immunotherapy combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab rivals chemotherapy as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), new data indicated.

Findings from the CHECKMATE-8HW trial revealed that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy among patients with metastatic CRC.

More specifically, at 2 years, PFS was 72% among patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) randomized to the immunotherapy combination compared with just 14% among those randomized to chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy.

The magnitude of the benefit was unexpected, especially considering patients received only four cycles of the immunotherapy combination in the trial. “It’s a good surprise,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, who presented the findings at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The findings indicate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab should really be “a new standard,” said Andre, a medical oncologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The combination as well as nivolumab alone has received US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval to treat MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC in the second line, following chemotherapy failure.

The FDA also approved pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy for this CRC indication in 2020. The KEYNOTE-177 trial, which led to the pembrolizumab approval, reported a 2-year PFS of 48% among patients receiving the monotherapy. Andre was the lead investigator on KEYNOTE-177.

To compare PFS results for pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone, the CHECKMATE-8HW trial included a nivolumab monotherapy arm, but these results are pending, as are the overall survival findings, Andre said.

Overall, CHECKMATE-8HW must be taken into context with KEYNOTE-177, and “we need a little bit more trial data” for oncologists to decide between the two options, said Neil Newman, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, who co-moderated Dr. Andre’s presentation.

Andre noted, however, that if the nivolumab and pembrolizumab monotherapy results are similar, most patients will likely receive the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, given the improved PFS outcomes.

In CHECKMATE-8HW, patients were randomized to three regimens. The 202 patients in the combination arm received nivolumab 240 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. The 101 patients in the chemotherapy group received investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. And the nivolumab monotherapy arm received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity over a maximum of 2 years. The median duration of treatment was 13.5 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm vs 4 months in the chemotherapy arm.

PFS curves started to separate between nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy at about 3 months.

Patients receiving the combination exhibited a 79% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death at 2 years (72% vs 14%; hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .0001). The median PFS was not reached with the combination vs 5.9 months with chemotherapy. The PFS benefit of nivolumab/ipilimumab held across various subgroups, including patients with KRAS or NRAS mutations and baseline lung, liver, or peritoneal metastases.

The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events was 23% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 48% in the chemotherapy arm. The most common grade 3/4 events with nivolumab/ipilimumab were diarrhea/colitis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (4%), hepatitis (3%), and inflammation of the pituitary gland (3%).

Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination arm — one from pneumonitis and the second from myocarditis — and none occurred in the chemotherapy arm.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, was impressed with the CHECKMATE-8HW findings. The data are shaping up to make nivolumab/ipilimumab “the next great step in metastatic CRC management beyond KEYNOTE-177,” Dr. Lewis said.

Dr. Lewis noted that the new trial makes it “imperative” to standardize testing for immunotherapy candidacy upfront. “It is completely unacceptable for any patient with metastatic CRC to not have their MMR/MSI status assessed,” he said. “Much as no oncologist would dare treat breast cancer without testing ER, PR, HER2 status, biomarkers cannot be a later-line afterthought in stage IV CRC.”

Drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb told this news organization that the company will be seeking a first-line indication for the combination, and anticipates approval early next year or possibly sooner, if the FDA grants a priority review.

The work was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the ONO Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Andre had numerous industry ties, including being a consultant for both BMS and Merck. He also reported honoraria from both companies. Dr. Newman and Dr. Lewis didn’t have any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — The immunotherapy combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab rivals chemotherapy as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), new data indicated.

Findings from the CHECKMATE-8HW trial revealed that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy among patients with metastatic CRC.

More specifically, at 2 years, PFS was 72% among patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) randomized to the immunotherapy combination compared with just 14% among those randomized to chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy.

The magnitude of the benefit was unexpected, especially considering patients received only four cycles of the immunotherapy combination in the trial. “It’s a good surprise,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, who presented the findings at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The findings indicate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab should really be “a new standard,” said Andre, a medical oncologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The combination as well as nivolumab alone has received US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval to treat MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC in the second line, following chemotherapy failure.

The FDA also approved pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy for this CRC indication in 2020. The KEYNOTE-177 trial, which led to the pembrolizumab approval, reported a 2-year PFS of 48% among patients receiving the monotherapy. Andre was the lead investigator on KEYNOTE-177.

To compare PFS results for pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone, the CHECKMATE-8HW trial included a nivolumab monotherapy arm, but these results are pending, as are the overall survival findings, Andre said.

Overall, CHECKMATE-8HW must be taken into context with KEYNOTE-177, and “we need a little bit more trial data” for oncologists to decide between the two options, said Neil Newman, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, who co-moderated Dr. Andre’s presentation.

Andre noted, however, that if the nivolumab and pembrolizumab monotherapy results are similar, most patients will likely receive the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, given the improved PFS outcomes.

In CHECKMATE-8HW, patients were randomized to three regimens. The 202 patients in the combination arm received nivolumab 240 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. The 101 patients in the chemotherapy group received investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. And the nivolumab monotherapy arm received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity over a maximum of 2 years. The median duration of treatment was 13.5 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm vs 4 months in the chemotherapy arm.

PFS curves started to separate between nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy at about 3 months.

Patients receiving the combination exhibited a 79% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death at 2 years (72% vs 14%; hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .0001). The median PFS was not reached with the combination vs 5.9 months with chemotherapy. The PFS benefit of nivolumab/ipilimumab held across various subgroups, including patients with KRAS or NRAS mutations and baseline lung, liver, or peritoneal metastases.

The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events was 23% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 48% in the chemotherapy arm. The most common grade 3/4 events with nivolumab/ipilimumab were diarrhea/colitis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (4%), hepatitis (3%), and inflammation of the pituitary gland (3%).

Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination arm — one from pneumonitis and the second from myocarditis — and none occurred in the chemotherapy arm.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, was impressed with the CHECKMATE-8HW findings. The data are shaping up to make nivolumab/ipilimumab “the next great step in metastatic CRC management beyond KEYNOTE-177,” Dr. Lewis said.

Dr. Lewis noted that the new trial makes it “imperative” to standardize testing for immunotherapy candidacy upfront. “It is completely unacceptable for any patient with metastatic CRC to not have their MMR/MSI status assessed,” he said. “Much as no oncologist would dare treat breast cancer without testing ER, PR, HER2 status, biomarkers cannot be a later-line afterthought in stage IV CRC.”

Drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb told this news organization that the company will be seeking a first-line indication for the combination, and anticipates approval early next year or possibly sooner, if the FDA grants a priority review.

The work was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the ONO Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Andre had numerous industry ties, including being a consultant for both BMS and Merck. He also reported honoraria from both companies. Dr. Newman and Dr. Lewis didn’t have any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — The immunotherapy combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab rivals chemotherapy as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), new data indicated.

Findings from the CHECKMATE-8HW trial revealed that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy among patients with metastatic CRC.

More specifically, at 2 years, PFS was 72% among patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) randomized to the immunotherapy combination compared with just 14% among those randomized to chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy.

The magnitude of the benefit was unexpected, especially considering patients received only four cycles of the immunotherapy combination in the trial. “It’s a good surprise,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, who presented the findings at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The findings indicate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab should really be “a new standard,” said Andre, a medical oncologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The combination as well as nivolumab alone has received US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval to treat MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC in the second line, following chemotherapy failure.

The FDA also approved pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy for this CRC indication in 2020. The KEYNOTE-177 trial, which led to the pembrolizumab approval, reported a 2-year PFS of 48% among patients receiving the monotherapy. Andre was the lead investigator on KEYNOTE-177.

To compare PFS results for pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone, the CHECKMATE-8HW trial included a nivolumab monotherapy arm, but these results are pending, as are the overall survival findings, Andre said.

Overall, CHECKMATE-8HW must be taken into context with KEYNOTE-177, and “we need a little bit more trial data” for oncologists to decide between the two options, said Neil Newman, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, who co-moderated Dr. Andre’s presentation.

Andre noted, however, that if the nivolumab and pembrolizumab monotherapy results are similar, most patients will likely receive the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, given the improved PFS outcomes.

In CHECKMATE-8HW, patients were randomized to three regimens. The 202 patients in the combination arm received nivolumab 240 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. The 101 patients in the chemotherapy group received investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. And the nivolumab monotherapy arm received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity over a maximum of 2 years. The median duration of treatment was 13.5 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm vs 4 months in the chemotherapy arm.

PFS curves started to separate between nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy at about 3 months.

Patients receiving the combination exhibited a 79% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death at 2 years (72% vs 14%; hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .0001). The median PFS was not reached with the combination vs 5.9 months with chemotherapy. The PFS benefit of nivolumab/ipilimumab held across various subgroups, including patients with KRAS or NRAS mutations and baseline lung, liver, or peritoneal metastases.

The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events was 23% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 48% in the chemotherapy arm. The most common grade 3/4 events with nivolumab/ipilimumab were diarrhea/colitis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (4%), hepatitis (3%), and inflammation of the pituitary gland (3%).

Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination arm — one from pneumonitis and the second from myocarditis — and none occurred in the chemotherapy arm.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, was impressed with the CHECKMATE-8HW findings. The data are shaping up to make nivolumab/ipilimumab “the next great step in metastatic CRC management beyond KEYNOTE-177,” Dr. Lewis said.

Dr. Lewis noted that the new trial makes it “imperative” to standardize testing for immunotherapy candidacy upfront. “It is completely unacceptable for any patient with metastatic CRC to not have their MMR/MSI status assessed,” he said. “Much as no oncologist would dare treat breast cancer without testing ER, PR, HER2 status, biomarkers cannot be a later-line afterthought in stage IV CRC.”

Drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb told this news organization that the company will be seeking a first-line indication for the combination, and anticipates approval early next year or possibly sooner, if the FDA grants a priority review.

The work was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the ONO Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Andre had numerous industry ties, including being a consultant for both BMS and Merck. He also reported honoraria from both companies. Dr. Newman and Dr. Lewis didn’t have any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.