User login
ACS officer provides ASCO highlights: Targeting hidden cancer, AI in oncology
And it didn’t just sparkle because of the sequined Taylor Swift fans clogging the nearby streets during the meeting.
Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who is also an oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he was impressed by a pair of landmark studies released at the meeting that show hidden cancer can be targeted with “really remarkable outcomes.” He also highlighted sessions that examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology, during an interview.
Below are lightly edited excerpts from a conversation with Dr. Kamal:
Question: What are some of most groundbreaking studies released at ASCO?
Answer: One is an interim analysis of the NATALEE trial, which involved patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast tumors. This phase 3 randomized trial compared maintenance therapy with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone in patients with node-positive or node-negative and stage II or III HR+/HER– breast cancer.
For a long time, the standard care in these patients has been to use endocrine therapy alone. This is the first big trial to show that upstream usage of additional therapy in early stages is also beneficial for disease-free survival. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% in the rebociclib-endocrine therapy group vs. 87.1% for patients who received only endocrine therapy (P = .0014).
Q: How do these findings add to current knowledge?
A: Typically, we let people get metastatic disease before we use CDK4/6 inhibitors. These findings show that systemic treatment beyond endocrine therapy will be helpful in cases where you’ve got smaller disease that has not spread yet.
Even in patients with node-negative breast cancer, micrometastatic disease is clearly there, because the medication killed the negative lymph nodes.
Q: What else struck you as especially important research?
A: The NATALEE findings match what we saw in another study – the ADAURA trial, which looked at adjuvant osimertinib in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA disease – cancer that has not spread to the lymph nodes.
This is another example where you have a treatment being used in earlier-stage disease that’s showing really remarkable outcomes. The study found that 5-year overall survival was 88% in an osimertinib group vs. 78% in a placebo group (P < .001). This is a disease where, in stage IB, we wouldn’t even necessarily give these patients treatment at all, other than surgical resection of the tumor and maybe give them a little bit of chemotherapy.
Even in these smaller, early tumors, osimertinib makes a difference.
Q: As a whole, what are these studies telling us about cancer cells that can’t be easily detected?
A: To find a disease-free survival benefit with adding ribociclib in a stage II, stage III setting, particularly in node-negative disease, is remarkable because it says that the cells in hiding are bad actors, and they are going to cause trouble. The study shows that medications can find these cells and reverse that risk of bad outcomes.
If you think about the paradigm of cancer, that’s pretty remarkable because the ADAURA trial does the same thing: You do surgery for [early-stage] lung cancers that have not spread to the lymph nodes and you figure, “Well, I’ve got it all, right? The margins are real big, healthy, clean.” And yet, people still have recurrences, and you ask the same question: “Can any medicine find those few cells, the hundreds of cells that are still left somewhere in hiding?” And the answer is again, yes. It’s changing the paradigm of our understanding of minimal residual disease.
That’s why there’s so much interest in liquid biopsies. Let’s say that after treatment we don’t see any cancer radiologically, but there’s a signal from a liquid biopsy [detecting residual cancer]. These two trials demonstrate that there’s something we can do about it.
Q: There were quite a few studies about artificial intelligence released at ASCO. Where do we stand on that front?
A: We’re just at the beginning of people thinking about the use of generative AI for clinical decision support, clinical trial matching, and pathology review. But AI, at least for now, still has the issue of making up things that aren’t true. That’s not something patients are going to be okay with.
Q: How can AI be helpful to medical providers considering its limitations?
A: AI is going to be very good at the data-to-information transition. You’ll start seeing people use AI to start clinical notes for them and to match patients to the best clinical trials for them. But fundamentally, the clinician’s role will continue to be to check facts and offer wisdom.
Q: Will AI threaten the careers of oncologists?
A: The body of knowledge about oncology is growing exponentially, and no one can actually keep up. There’s so much data that’s out there that needs to be turned into usable information amid a shortage of oncologists. At the same time, the prevalence of cancer is going up, even though mortality is going down.
Synthesis of data is what oncologists are waiting for from AI. They’ll welcome it as opposed to being worried. That’s the sentiment I heard from my colleagues.
Dr. Kamal has no disclosures.
And it didn’t just sparkle because of the sequined Taylor Swift fans clogging the nearby streets during the meeting.
Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who is also an oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he was impressed by a pair of landmark studies released at the meeting that show hidden cancer can be targeted with “really remarkable outcomes.” He also highlighted sessions that examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology, during an interview.
Below are lightly edited excerpts from a conversation with Dr. Kamal:
Question: What are some of most groundbreaking studies released at ASCO?
Answer: One is an interim analysis of the NATALEE trial, which involved patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast tumors. This phase 3 randomized trial compared maintenance therapy with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone in patients with node-positive or node-negative and stage II or III HR+/HER– breast cancer.
For a long time, the standard care in these patients has been to use endocrine therapy alone. This is the first big trial to show that upstream usage of additional therapy in early stages is also beneficial for disease-free survival. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% in the rebociclib-endocrine therapy group vs. 87.1% for patients who received only endocrine therapy (P = .0014).
Q: How do these findings add to current knowledge?
A: Typically, we let people get metastatic disease before we use CDK4/6 inhibitors. These findings show that systemic treatment beyond endocrine therapy will be helpful in cases where you’ve got smaller disease that has not spread yet.
Even in patients with node-negative breast cancer, micrometastatic disease is clearly there, because the medication killed the negative lymph nodes.
Q: What else struck you as especially important research?
A: The NATALEE findings match what we saw in another study – the ADAURA trial, which looked at adjuvant osimertinib in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA disease – cancer that has not spread to the lymph nodes.
This is another example where you have a treatment being used in earlier-stage disease that’s showing really remarkable outcomes. The study found that 5-year overall survival was 88% in an osimertinib group vs. 78% in a placebo group (P < .001). This is a disease where, in stage IB, we wouldn’t even necessarily give these patients treatment at all, other than surgical resection of the tumor and maybe give them a little bit of chemotherapy.
Even in these smaller, early tumors, osimertinib makes a difference.
Q: As a whole, what are these studies telling us about cancer cells that can’t be easily detected?
A: To find a disease-free survival benefit with adding ribociclib in a stage II, stage III setting, particularly in node-negative disease, is remarkable because it says that the cells in hiding are bad actors, and they are going to cause trouble. The study shows that medications can find these cells and reverse that risk of bad outcomes.
If you think about the paradigm of cancer, that’s pretty remarkable because the ADAURA trial does the same thing: You do surgery for [early-stage] lung cancers that have not spread to the lymph nodes and you figure, “Well, I’ve got it all, right? The margins are real big, healthy, clean.” And yet, people still have recurrences, and you ask the same question: “Can any medicine find those few cells, the hundreds of cells that are still left somewhere in hiding?” And the answer is again, yes. It’s changing the paradigm of our understanding of minimal residual disease.
That’s why there’s so much interest in liquid biopsies. Let’s say that after treatment we don’t see any cancer radiologically, but there’s a signal from a liquid biopsy [detecting residual cancer]. These two trials demonstrate that there’s something we can do about it.
Q: There were quite a few studies about artificial intelligence released at ASCO. Where do we stand on that front?
A: We’re just at the beginning of people thinking about the use of generative AI for clinical decision support, clinical trial matching, and pathology review. But AI, at least for now, still has the issue of making up things that aren’t true. That’s not something patients are going to be okay with.
Q: How can AI be helpful to medical providers considering its limitations?
A: AI is going to be very good at the data-to-information transition. You’ll start seeing people use AI to start clinical notes for them and to match patients to the best clinical trials for them. But fundamentally, the clinician’s role will continue to be to check facts and offer wisdom.
Q: Will AI threaten the careers of oncologists?
A: The body of knowledge about oncology is growing exponentially, and no one can actually keep up. There’s so much data that’s out there that needs to be turned into usable information amid a shortage of oncologists. At the same time, the prevalence of cancer is going up, even though mortality is going down.
Synthesis of data is what oncologists are waiting for from AI. They’ll welcome it as opposed to being worried. That’s the sentiment I heard from my colleagues.
Dr. Kamal has no disclosures.
And it didn’t just sparkle because of the sequined Taylor Swift fans clogging the nearby streets during the meeting.
Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who is also an oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he was impressed by a pair of landmark studies released at the meeting that show hidden cancer can be targeted with “really remarkable outcomes.” He also highlighted sessions that examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology, during an interview.
Below are lightly edited excerpts from a conversation with Dr. Kamal:
Question: What are some of most groundbreaking studies released at ASCO?
Answer: One is an interim analysis of the NATALEE trial, which involved patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast tumors. This phase 3 randomized trial compared maintenance therapy with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone in patients with node-positive or node-negative and stage II or III HR+/HER– breast cancer.
For a long time, the standard care in these patients has been to use endocrine therapy alone. This is the first big trial to show that upstream usage of additional therapy in early stages is also beneficial for disease-free survival. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% in the rebociclib-endocrine therapy group vs. 87.1% for patients who received only endocrine therapy (P = .0014).
Q: How do these findings add to current knowledge?
A: Typically, we let people get metastatic disease before we use CDK4/6 inhibitors. These findings show that systemic treatment beyond endocrine therapy will be helpful in cases where you’ve got smaller disease that has not spread yet.
Even in patients with node-negative breast cancer, micrometastatic disease is clearly there, because the medication killed the negative lymph nodes.
Q: What else struck you as especially important research?
A: The NATALEE findings match what we saw in another study – the ADAURA trial, which looked at adjuvant osimertinib in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA disease – cancer that has not spread to the lymph nodes.
This is another example where you have a treatment being used in earlier-stage disease that’s showing really remarkable outcomes. The study found that 5-year overall survival was 88% in an osimertinib group vs. 78% in a placebo group (P < .001). This is a disease where, in stage IB, we wouldn’t even necessarily give these patients treatment at all, other than surgical resection of the tumor and maybe give them a little bit of chemotherapy.
Even in these smaller, early tumors, osimertinib makes a difference.
Q: As a whole, what are these studies telling us about cancer cells that can’t be easily detected?
A: To find a disease-free survival benefit with adding ribociclib in a stage II, stage III setting, particularly in node-negative disease, is remarkable because it says that the cells in hiding are bad actors, and they are going to cause trouble. The study shows that medications can find these cells and reverse that risk of bad outcomes.
If you think about the paradigm of cancer, that’s pretty remarkable because the ADAURA trial does the same thing: You do surgery for [early-stage] lung cancers that have not spread to the lymph nodes and you figure, “Well, I’ve got it all, right? The margins are real big, healthy, clean.” And yet, people still have recurrences, and you ask the same question: “Can any medicine find those few cells, the hundreds of cells that are still left somewhere in hiding?” And the answer is again, yes. It’s changing the paradigm of our understanding of minimal residual disease.
That’s why there’s so much interest in liquid biopsies. Let’s say that after treatment we don’t see any cancer radiologically, but there’s a signal from a liquid biopsy [detecting residual cancer]. These two trials demonstrate that there’s something we can do about it.
Q: There were quite a few studies about artificial intelligence released at ASCO. Where do we stand on that front?
A: We’re just at the beginning of people thinking about the use of generative AI for clinical decision support, clinical trial matching, and pathology review. But AI, at least for now, still has the issue of making up things that aren’t true. That’s not something patients are going to be okay with.
Q: How can AI be helpful to medical providers considering its limitations?
A: AI is going to be very good at the data-to-information transition. You’ll start seeing people use AI to start clinical notes for them and to match patients to the best clinical trials for them. But fundamentally, the clinician’s role will continue to be to check facts and offer wisdom.
Q: Will AI threaten the careers of oncologists?
A: The body of knowledge about oncology is growing exponentially, and no one can actually keep up. There’s so much data that’s out there that needs to be turned into usable information amid a shortage of oncologists. At the same time, the prevalence of cancer is going up, even though mortality is going down.
Synthesis of data is what oncologists are waiting for from AI. They’ll welcome it as opposed to being worried. That’s the sentiment I heard from my colleagues.
Dr. Kamal has no disclosures.
AT ASCO 2023
‘New standard of care’ for capecitabine hand-foot syndrome
researchers reported in a study that has been hailed by experts as “practice changing.”
Hand-foot syndrome causes painful, bleeding blisters and ulcers on the palms and soles. It often leads to dose reductions and sometimes even discontinuations, both of which limit the effectiveness of capecitabine, a standard oral chemotherapy drug widely used for colorectal and breast cancers.
In a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Indian researchers reported that a cheap, safe, and widely available over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory gel containing 1% diclofenac reduced the incidence of hand-foot syndrome by 75% among patients with cancer being treated with capecitabine.
Up until now, the oral anti-inflammatory celecoxib (Celebrex) was the only agent proven to prevent the problem, but it’s rarely used because of the risk for strokes, gastric bleeding, and other issues, none of which are a concern with topical diclofenac, which osteoarthritis patients have used safely for years.
The Indian trial, dubbed D-Torch, establishes “1% topical diclofenac gel as the new standard of care to prevent capecitabine-associated hand-foot syndrome,” said investigator and study presenter Atul Batra, MD, a medical oncologist at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.
Dr. Batra told ASCO Daily News that there is no need for a second trial. “We don’t feel there’s a need to replicate these results” in a larger study “because this was adequately powered, and the results speak for themselves. There’s no confusion about these results. Diclofenac is clearly effective.”
Dr. Batra also commented that his clinic now uses topical diclofenac routinely during capecitabine treatment and that he hopes oncology practices elsewhere will do the same.
Diclofenac gel is sold under the brand name Voltaren and is also available as a generic; in the United States, a 150-gram tube costs about $18 at Walmart.
‘The most practice-changing study’ at ASCO 2023
Audience members at ASCO’s annual meeting immediately saw the importance of the study.
Tarah Ballinger, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said on Twitter that “this might be the most practice changing study I heard at ASCO23.” Topical diclofenac is “widely available, affordable, [and] addresses [a] major” quality of life issue.
The study discussant at the meeting, gastrointestinal cancer specialist Pallavi Kumar, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, concurred: “For me as a GI oncologist, topical diclofenac for prevention of HFS for patients on capecitabine is practice changing,” she said.
The takeaway is “that topical diclofenac significantly reduces the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS in patients receiving capecitabine.” The results are “very impressive,” Dr. Kumar said.
Study details
The idea for the new study came after Batra and colleagues realized that celecoxib, a COX-2 enzyme inhibitor, helps prevent capecitabine hand-foot syndrome (HFS) by blocking a key process that leads to it, the up-regulation of COX-2 and subsequent release of proinflammatory prostaglandins.
They turned to diclofenac gel hoping to get the same effect but more safely; diclofenac is also a COX-2 blocker, and its topical formulation has a strong safety record.
To test the approach, the team randomly assigned 130 patients to topical diclofenac and 133 to placebo – the gel vehicle without the medication – while they were being treated with capecitabine for 12 weeks; 56% were being treated for breast cancer and the rest for gastrointestinal cancers.
Subjects rubbed one fingertip’s worth of gel – about half a gram – on each palm and the back of each hand twice a day. The dose was about 4 grams/day, which is well below maximal dosages for osteoarthritis (up to 32 g/day over all affected joints). Adherence to treatment was about 95% in both arms.
By the end of 12 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS was 3.8% in the diclofenac arm (5 patients) versus 15% (n = 20) with placebo (P = .003), a 75% risk reduction.
The incidence of any grade HFS was 6.1% in the treatment group versus 18.1% with placebo (P = .003).
Hand-foot syndrome led to dose reductions of capecitabine in 13.5% of placebo but only 3.8% of those in the diclofenac group (P = .002).
The findings held regardless of whether patients were being treated for breast or GI cancer or if they were men or women.
Other capecitabine-induced adverse events, including diarrhea, mucositis, and myelosuppression, were not significantly different between the groups.
The treatment arms were well balanced, with a median age of 47 years in both groups and women making up about 70% of each. About 40% of subjects in each group were on capecitabine monotherapy with the rest on combination treatments. The mean dose of capecitabine was just over 1,880 mg/m2 in both groups.
At the meeting, Dr. Batra was asked if topical diclofenac would also work for another common problem in oncology: hand-food syndrome occurring as a side-effect with VEGF–tyrosine kinase inhibitors. He didn’t think so because it probably has a different cause than capecitabine HFS, one not strongly related to COX-2 up-regulation.
The study was partly funded by the Indian Supportive Care of Cancer Association. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
researchers reported in a study that has been hailed by experts as “practice changing.”
Hand-foot syndrome causes painful, bleeding blisters and ulcers on the palms and soles. It often leads to dose reductions and sometimes even discontinuations, both of which limit the effectiveness of capecitabine, a standard oral chemotherapy drug widely used for colorectal and breast cancers.
In a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Indian researchers reported that a cheap, safe, and widely available over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory gel containing 1% diclofenac reduced the incidence of hand-foot syndrome by 75% among patients with cancer being treated with capecitabine.
Up until now, the oral anti-inflammatory celecoxib (Celebrex) was the only agent proven to prevent the problem, but it’s rarely used because of the risk for strokes, gastric bleeding, and other issues, none of which are a concern with topical diclofenac, which osteoarthritis patients have used safely for years.
The Indian trial, dubbed D-Torch, establishes “1% topical diclofenac gel as the new standard of care to prevent capecitabine-associated hand-foot syndrome,” said investigator and study presenter Atul Batra, MD, a medical oncologist at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.
Dr. Batra told ASCO Daily News that there is no need for a second trial. “We don’t feel there’s a need to replicate these results” in a larger study “because this was adequately powered, and the results speak for themselves. There’s no confusion about these results. Diclofenac is clearly effective.”
Dr. Batra also commented that his clinic now uses topical diclofenac routinely during capecitabine treatment and that he hopes oncology practices elsewhere will do the same.
Diclofenac gel is sold under the brand name Voltaren and is also available as a generic; in the United States, a 150-gram tube costs about $18 at Walmart.
‘The most practice-changing study’ at ASCO 2023
Audience members at ASCO’s annual meeting immediately saw the importance of the study.
Tarah Ballinger, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said on Twitter that “this might be the most practice changing study I heard at ASCO23.” Topical diclofenac is “widely available, affordable, [and] addresses [a] major” quality of life issue.
The study discussant at the meeting, gastrointestinal cancer specialist Pallavi Kumar, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, concurred: “For me as a GI oncologist, topical diclofenac for prevention of HFS for patients on capecitabine is practice changing,” she said.
The takeaway is “that topical diclofenac significantly reduces the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS in patients receiving capecitabine.” The results are “very impressive,” Dr. Kumar said.
Study details
The idea for the new study came after Batra and colleagues realized that celecoxib, a COX-2 enzyme inhibitor, helps prevent capecitabine hand-foot syndrome (HFS) by blocking a key process that leads to it, the up-regulation of COX-2 and subsequent release of proinflammatory prostaglandins.
They turned to diclofenac gel hoping to get the same effect but more safely; diclofenac is also a COX-2 blocker, and its topical formulation has a strong safety record.
To test the approach, the team randomly assigned 130 patients to topical diclofenac and 133 to placebo – the gel vehicle without the medication – while they were being treated with capecitabine for 12 weeks; 56% were being treated for breast cancer and the rest for gastrointestinal cancers.
Subjects rubbed one fingertip’s worth of gel – about half a gram – on each palm and the back of each hand twice a day. The dose was about 4 grams/day, which is well below maximal dosages for osteoarthritis (up to 32 g/day over all affected joints). Adherence to treatment was about 95% in both arms.
By the end of 12 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS was 3.8% in the diclofenac arm (5 patients) versus 15% (n = 20) with placebo (P = .003), a 75% risk reduction.
The incidence of any grade HFS was 6.1% in the treatment group versus 18.1% with placebo (P = .003).
Hand-foot syndrome led to dose reductions of capecitabine in 13.5% of placebo but only 3.8% of those in the diclofenac group (P = .002).
The findings held regardless of whether patients were being treated for breast or GI cancer or if they were men or women.
Other capecitabine-induced adverse events, including diarrhea, mucositis, and myelosuppression, were not significantly different between the groups.
The treatment arms were well balanced, with a median age of 47 years in both groups and women making up about 70% of each. About 40% of subjects in each group were on capecitabine monotherapy with the rest on combination treatments. The mean dose of capecitabine was just over 1,880 mg/m2 in both groups.
At the meeting, Dr. Batra was asked if topical diclofenac would also work for another common problem in oncology: hand-food syndrome occurring as a side-effect with VEGF–tyrosine kinase inhibitors. He didn’t think so because it probably has a different cause than capecitabine HFS, one not strongly related to COX-2 up-regulation.
The study was partly funded by the Indian Supportive Care of Cancer Association. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
researchers reported in a study that has been hailed by experts as “practice changing.”
Hand-foot syndrome causes painful, bleeding blisters and ulcers on the palms and soles. It often leads to dose reductions and sometimes even discontinuations, both of which limit the effectiveness of capecitabine, a standard oral chemotherapy drug widely used for colorectal and breast cancers.
In a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Indian researchers reported that a cheap, safe, and widely available over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory gel containing 1% diclofenac reduced the incidence of hand-foot syndrome by 75% among patients with cancer being treated with capecitabine.
Up until now, the oral anti-inflammatory celecoxib (Celebrex) was the only agent proven to prevent the problem, but it’s rarely used because of the risk for strokes, gastric bleeding, and other issues, none of which are a concern with topical diclofenac, which osteoarthritis patients have used safely for years.
The Indian trial, dubbed D-Torch, establishes “1% topical diclofenac gel as the new standard of care to prevent capecitabine-associated hand-foot syndrome,” said investigator and study presenter Atul Batra, MD, a medical oncologist at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.
Dr. Batra told ASCO Daily News that there is no need for a second trial. “We don’t feel there’s a need to replicate these results” in a larger study “because this was adequately powered, and the results speak for themselves. There’s no confusion about these results. Diclofenac is clearly effective.”
Dr. Batra also commented that his clinic now uses topical diclofenac routinely during capecitabine treatment and that he hopes oncology practices elsewhere will do the same.
Diclofenac gel is sold under the brand name Voltaren and is also available as a generic; in the United States, a 150-gram tube costs about $18 at Walmart.
‘The most practice-changing study’ at ASCO 2023
Audience members at ASCO’s annual meeting immediately saw the importance of the study.
Tarah Ballinger, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said on Twitter that “this might be the most practice changing study I heard at ASCO23.” Topical diclofenac is “widely available, affordable, [and] addresses [a] major” quality of life issue.
The study discussant at the meeting, gastrointestinal cancer specialist Pallavi Kumar, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, concurred: “For me as a GI oncologist, topical diclofenac for prevention of HFS for patients on capecitabine is practice changing,” she said.
The takeaway is “that topical diclofenac significantly reduces the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS in patients receiving capecitabine.” The results are “very impressive,” Dr. Kumar said.
Study details
The idea for the new study came after Batra and colleagues realized that celecoxib, a COX-2 enzyme inhibitor, helps prevent capecitabine hand-foot syndrome (HFS) by blocking a key process that leads to it, the up-regulation of COX-2 and subsequent release of proinflammatory prostaglandins.
They turned to diclofenac gel hoping to get the same effect but more safely; diclofenac is also a COX-2 blocker, and its topical formulation has a strong safety record.
To test the approach, the team randomly assigned 130 patients to topical diclofenac and 133 to placebo – the gel vehicle without the medication – while they were being treated with capecitabine for 12 weeks; 56% were being treated for breast cancer and the rest for gastrointestinal cancers.
Subjects rubbed one fingertip’s worth of gel – about half a gram – on each palm and the back of each hand twice a day. The dose was about 4 grams/day, which is well below maximal dosages for osteoarthritis (up to 32 g/day over all affected joints). Adherence to treatment was about 95% in both arms.
By the end of 12 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS was 3.8% in the diclofenac arm (5 patients) versus 15% (n = 20) with placebo (P = .003), a 75% risk reduction.
The incidence of any grade HFS was 6.1% in the treatment group versus 18.1% with placebo (P = .003).
Hand-foot syndrome led to dose reductions of capecitabine in 13.5% of placebo but only 3.8% of those in the diclofenac group (P = .002).
The findings held regardless of whether patients were being treated for breast or GI cancer or if they were men or women.
Other capecitabine-induced adverse events, including diarrhea, mucositis, and myelosuppression, were not significantly different between the groups.
The treatment arms were well balanced, with a median age of 47 years in both groups and women making up about 70% of each. About 40% of subjects in each group were on capecitabine monotherapy with the rest on combination treatments. The mean dose of capecitabine was just over 1,880 mg/m2 in both groups.
At the meeting, Dr. Batra was asked if topical diclofenac would also work for another common problem in oncology: hand-food syndrome occurring as a side-effect with VEGF–tyrosine kinase inhibitors. He didn’t think so because it probably has a different cause than capecitabine HFS, one not strongly related to COX-2 up-regulation.
The study was partly funded by the Indian Supportive Care of Cancer Association. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2023
It’s okay to say ‘no’: Setting boundaries in oncology
CHICAGO – in order to protect their well-being and reduce their risk of burnout.
This was the message from speakers at a special session on “Setting Boundaries” during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Monica Sheila Chatwal, MD, a medical oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., suggested that, like a painting in a museum, physicians should have “some level of guardrail” to protect their knowledge and expertise, and also their ability to be able to continue to care for patients.
Having set boundaries “provides more emotional and cognitive flexibility, and less uncertainty, in the relationships that we have with our colleagues, with our patients, with everyone around us,” she argued.
“More importantly, boundaries acknowledge that, as humans, we are multifaceted, multidimensional people,” and that “we have lives outside of medicine, much as we may or may not want to admit that.
“It’s great to be devoted to what we do, but there are so many other aspects of ourselves that make us who we are, and that is wonderful,” she said.
A calling, not a job
However, the idea of demarcating one’s professional and personal life can go against the still-persistent idea that being a doctor is a calling rather than a job.
“I don’t think it matters whether you call it a job or a calling,” commented another speaker at the session, Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer.
But even if it is a calling, which implies that “you are supposed to devote all of yourself to the work and not to anything else,” there is still a need for setting boundaries, he argued. Saying “no” and allowing “yourself to be yourself” are important measures, Dr. Marron emphasized, as taking time out can make you a better clinician.
Crucial to that is being able to communicate with colleagues and share a degree of “vulnerability,” added Dr. Chatwal. “Showing that you’re vulnerable not only to your trainees, but also to your staff and to your patients really normalizes everything.”
“I have nurses who are feeling like they have to work 24/7 and manage their inbox to answer all of their messages, because they feel like they have to keep up.
“But it’s nice for me to be able to model that and say: ‘Listen, I want you to know it’s not urgent, please take 24 hours and we’ll come back to it.’ ”
Communicating with patients
Dr. Chatwal noted that, while there are clear boundaries related to sexual or physical relationships between doctors and patients and around not treating family members or friends, the boundaries pertaining to communication, and “how frequently [patients] have access to us ... are not so clearly defined.”
The advent of telemedicine has added to that, she believes, as it offers a “patient portal that can allow access 24/7.”
“Does that mean we as physicians or providers also give that level of access? Are we supposed to check messages at all periods of time?”
“More and more people are becoming more cognizant of this,” she commented, noting that the issue has taken on greater import with the rise of social media and the “ability for our patients to request us as friends.”
She pointed out that former president of the American College of Physicians Wayne J. Riley, MD, MPH, MBA, suggested doctors should maintain an air of detachment with their patients, as “it allows us to protect ourselves and continue to provide that great level of care.”
On the other hand, she noted that there has been a sea change in how patients see doctors. Whereas in the past, medicine “was very paternalistic” with doctors seen as the “be all and end all,” now patients tend to be more knowledgeable and Dr. Google “makes them much more engaged in their care.”
But this can also cause problems when patients become “demanding for certain treatments,” she said.
Limits to ethical care?
Dr. Marron posed the question: “Is there a limit to my ethical obligations to ethical care?”
He described a hypothetical scenario where a patient has found their doctor’s email address online and they now sends “frequent emails, despite very clear instructions to use the on-call paging system for something that’s urgent, and the electronic health record messaging system otherwise.”
This patient’s behavior is “causing a huge amount of stress” for the doctor, and this is affecting their care of other patients, as well as their academic work and home life.
Dr. Marron asked the audience: Would it be ethically acceptable to stop seeing such a patient?
Taking a quick straw poll of the audience, Dr. Marron noted that there were “not a lot of hands” raised in favor.
He suggested this is because the notion of nonabandonment comes into play, in which there is an obligation to not let patients go without providing adequate time for them to find an alternative clinician.
In this scenario, for example, the doctor could find “several local oncologists who are willing to accept the patient,” as well as talk the situation through with a trusted colleagues, and only then “compassionately but resolutely” tell the patient that they will be transferred.
Dr. Marron acknowledged that this may seem at odds with the theme of this year’s ASCO annual meeting, which emphasizes “partnering with patients.” But he argued that “it doesn’t have to be.”
When thoughtfully done, setting boundaries “can ethically allow us to give more to, and partner more with, our patients, while supporting our well-being, sense of purpose, and job satisfaction,” he argued.
Goldilocks situation
Speaking more broadly, Dr. Marron said that boundaries might be considered on a spectrum.
Too few boundaries can lead to conflicts of interest, loss of balance in the patient-physician relationship, and overengagement, while too many boundaries may result in insufficient connection with patients, thus reducing the “human element” and increasing a sense of disengagement.
Either way, “we run the risk of having decreased satisfaction what with what we’re doing, and decreasing the quality of patient care.”
“It’s a little bit of a Goldilocks situation: You want to find just the right balance, somewhere in the middle,” he said.
In the past, issues around having too few boundaries related to conflicts of interest. This reduced trust in the medical profession, he commented, which may have affected patient outcomes, and certainly increased the risk of reduced well-being and burnout.
“Today, we probably still lie on the end of the spectrum with too few boundaries,” Dr. Marron said, “but in a very different way, as we worry about limited work-life balance, and always being connected.”
“I don’t think there’s anybody in the room who doesn’t have some kind of electronic device, either in their hand or not too far from their hand,” he continued.
Moreover, “the patients that we’re taking care of have a greater amount of complexity than they’ve ever had before ... [with] greater numbers of needs than ever before,” and as a result, they require “a greater amount of our time as clinicians.”
Just as with the lack of boundaries in the past, this “runs the risk of us having decreased well-being and an increased risk of burnout,” he suggested.
Wearing several hats
The third speaker, Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, associate professor of medicine and population health, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said that every oncologist wears several “hats” in addition to being a clinician.
These may include, in his case, being “a father, a husband, and a brother, and a soccer coach, and a lot of different things.”
Dr. Kamal underlined that recognizing these various roles is “really important,” especially when it comes to the “moment of comparison with others,” as there is a temptation to see one’s own complexity but not that of a colleague.
“The question is: What are all the other competing priorities that a person faces?”
For example, a person’s tally of publications is “just one of many metrics” when it comes to measuring the “success of a career, and, frankly, I’m not sure that’s one of the good ones,” Dr. Kamal said.
He recalled how a mentor of his when he was at the Mayo Clinic had a “remarkable dip” in the number of publications at a certain point in his career, and he explained to Dr. Kamal that this was the time “when my kids needed me the most.”
“That was really important,” Dr. Kamal said, “because it taught me a lesson about having mentors in your life that are not only focused on your career and academic success, but also those who are very interested in the other hats that you wear.”
Fear of saying no
One way of setting boundaries is saying no to certain requests, Dr. Kamal commented.
He gave an example from his own life – when he was at a soccer game and received a call on his cell from a patient who has seen test results before he has had a chance to review them.
Dr. Kamal also painted a hypothetical scenario, where a doctor on junior faculty, staffing a GI oncology clinic 4 days a week, is also volunteering to collect and organize new cases for the tumor board, and is writing several letters of intent for pharmaceutical trials. They are saying “yes” to 90% of the requests for their time, he said, and the result is they go home “most days feeling like their tank is on empty.”
“Then this person gets asked by the division chief to serve on the hospital’s pain committee,” he said, “regardless of the fact that this is not necessarily in their clinical or research interests.”
“So this is really a bit of an [out of] left field request, and how does this person address this?”
Dr. Kamal said that a useful concept to consider is something commonly ascribed to teenagers, that of the fear of missing out, or FOMO.
The problem is that, “due to this concept of FOMO, when opportunities come your way, saying ‘no’ to them gives rise to the question: What if the opportunity never comes back?”
But Dr. Kamal also reminded the audience that “without being able to say no to things ... your capacity will go down.”
“That’s really important to recognize, because for a long time, healing professions have been thought of as [having] people that can continue to expand and expand and expand, without calling out this concept of inflation.”
This is really about “being true to yourself,” and acknowledging that “no one is going to set boundaries for you.”
“That was a tough lesson I learned in my career,” Dr. Kamal commented, and when he looked for guidance, he found that “everyone is struggling with this.”
Setting boundaries, he emphasized, requires “a certain amount of looking inward ... and it requires some bravery.”
“You just have to ask yourself: Is the only reason you’re going to do something because of FOMO?” Dr. Kamal commented. “Maybe that’s okay, but you have to acknowledge that’s the case.”
Dr. Chatwal reported a relationship with Merck. Dr. Marron reported relationships with Genzyme, Partner Therapeutics, ROM Technologies, Arnett, Draper, & Hagood, and Trentalange & Kelley. Dr. Kamal reported relationships with Acclivity Health, Prepped Health, Private Diagnostic Clinic, AstraZeneca, Care4ward, Compassus, HERON, Janssen Oncology, Medtronic, New Century Health, UnitedHealth Group, and Janssen Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – in order to protect their well-being and reduce their risk of burnout.
This was the message from speakers at a special session on “Setting Boundaries” during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Monica Sheila Chatwal, MD, a medical oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., suggested that, like a painting in a museum, physicians should have “some level of guardrail” to protect their knowledge and expertise, and also their ability to be able to continue to care for patients.
Having set boundaries “provides more emotional and cognitive flexibility, and less uncertainty, in the relationships that we have with our colleagues, with our patients, with everyone around us,” she argued.
“More importantly, boundaries acknowledge that, as humans, we are multifaceted, multidimensional people,” and that “we have lives outside of medicine, much as we may or may not want to admit that.
“It’s great to be devoted to what we do, but there are so many other aspects of ourselves that make us who we are, and that is wonderful,” she said.
A calling, not a job
However, the idea of demarcating one’s professional and personal life can go against the still-persistent idea that being a doctor is a calling rather than a job.
“I don’t think it matters whether you call it a job or a calling,” commented another speaker at the session, Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer.
But even if it is a calling, which implies that “you are supposed to devote all of yourself to the work and not to anything else,” there is still a need for setting boundaries, he argued. Saying “no” and allowing “yourself to be yourself” are important measures, Dr. Marron emphasized, as taking time out can make you a better clinician.
Crucial to that is being able to communicate with colleagues and share a degree of “vulnerability,” added Dr. Chatwal. “Showing that you’re vulnerable not only to your trainees, but also to your staff and to your patients really normalizes everything.”
“I have nurses who are feeling like they have to work 24/7 and manage their inbox to answer all of their messages, because they feel like they have to keep up.
“But it’s nice for me to be able to model that and say: ‘Listen, I want you to know it’s not urgent, please take 24 hours and we’ll come back to it.’ ”
Communicating with patients
Dr. Chatwal noted that, while there are clear boundaries related to sexual or physical relationships between doctors and patients and around not treating family members or friends, the boundaries pertaining to communication, and “how frequently [patients] have access to us ... are not so clearly defined.”
The advent of telemedicine has added to that, she believes, as it offers a “patient portal that can allow access 24/7.”
“Does that mean we as physicians or providers also give that level of access? Are we supposed to check messages at all periods of time?”
“More and more people are becoming more cognizant of this,” she commented, noting that the issue has taken on greater import with the rise of social media and the “ability for our patients to request us as friends.”
She pointed out that former president of the American College of Physicians Wayne J. Riley, MD, MPH, MBA, suggested doctors should maintain an air of detachment with their patients, as “it allows us to protect ourselves and continue to provide that great level of care.”
On the other hand, she noted that there has been a sea change in how patients see doctors. Whereas in the past, medicine “was very paternalistic” with doctors seen as the “be all and end all,” now patients tend to be more knowledgeable and Dr. Google “makes them much more engaged in their care.”
But this can also cause problems when patients become “demanding for certain treatments,” she said.
Limits to ethical care?
Dr. Marron posed the question: “Is there a limit to my ethical obligations to ethical care?”
He described a hypothetical scenario where a patient has found their doctor’s email address online and they now sends “frequent emails, despite very clear instructions to use the on-call paging system for something that’s urgent, and the electronic health record messaging system otherwise.”
This patient’s behavior is “causing a huge amount of stress” for the doctor, and this is affecting their care of other patients, as well as their academic work and home life.
Dr. Marron asked the audience: Would it be ethically acceptable to stop seeing such a patient?
Taking a quick straw poll of the audience, Dr. Marron noted that there were “not a lot of hands” raised in favor.
He suggested this is because the notion of nonabandonment comes into play, in which there is an obligation to not let patients go without providing adequate time for them to find an alternative clinician.
In this scenario, for example, the doctor could find “several local oncologists who are willing to accept the patient,” as well as talk the situation through with a trusted colleagues, and only then “compassionately but resolutely” tell the patient that they will be transferred.
Dr. Marron acknowledged that this may seem at odds with the theme of this year’s ASCO annual meeting, which emphasizes “partnering with patients.” But he argued that “it doesn’t have to be.”
When thoughtfully done, setting boundaries “can ethically allow us to give more to, and partner more with, our patients, while supporting our well-being, sense of purpose, and job satisfaction,” he argued.
Goldilocks situation
Speaking more broadly, Dr. Marron said that boundaries might be considered on a spectrum.
Too few boundaries can lead to conflicts of interest, loss of balance in the patient-physician relationship, and overengagement, while too many boundaries may result in insufficient connection with patients, thus reducing the “human element” and increasing a sense of disengagement.
Either way, “we run the risk of having decreased satisfaction what with what we’re doing, and decreasing the quality of patient care.”
“It’s a little bit of a Goldilocks situation: You want to find just the right balance, somewhere in the middle,” he said.
In the past, issues around having too few boundaries related to conflicts of interest. This reduced trust in the medical profession, he commented, which may have affected patient outcomes, and certainly increased the risk of reduced well-being and burnout.
“Today, we probably still lie on the end of the spectrum with too few boundaries,” Dr. Marron said, “but in a very different way, as we worry about limited work-life balance, and always being connected.”
“I don’t think there’s anybody in the room who doesn’t have some kind of electronic device, either in their hand or not too far from their hand,” he continued.
Moreover, “the patients that we’re taking care of have a greater amount of complexity than they’ve ever had before ... [with] greater numbers of needs than ever before,” and as a result, they require “a greater amount of our time as clinicians.”
Just as with the lack of boundaries in the past, this “runs the risk of us having decreased well-being and an increased risk of burnout,” he suggested.
Wearing several hats
The third speaker, Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, associate professor of medicine and population health, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said that every oncologist wears several “hats” in addition to being a clinician.
These may include, in his case, being “a father, a husband, and a brother, and a soccer coach, and a lot of different things.”
Dr. Kamal underlined that recognizing these various roles is “really important,” especially when it comes to the “moment of comparison with others,” as there is a temptation to see one’s own complexity but not that of a colleague.
“The question is: What are all the other competing priorities that a person faces?”
For example, a person’s tally of publications is “just one of many metrics” when it comes to measuring the “success of a career, and, frankly, I’m not sure that’s one of the good ones,” Dr. Kamal said.
He recalled how a mentor of his when he was at the Mayo Clinic had a “remarkable dip” in the number of publications at a certain point in his career, and he explained to Dr. Kamal that this was the time “when my kids needed me the most.”
“That was really important,” Dr. Kamal said, “because it taught me a lesson about having mentors in your life that are not only focused on your career and academic success, but also those who are very interested in the other hats that you wear.”
Fear of saying no
One way of setting boundaries is saying no to certain requests, Dr. Kamal commented.
He gave an example from his own life – when he was at a soccer game and received a call on his cell from a patient who has seen test results before he has had a chance to review them.
Dr. Kamal also painted a hypothetical scenario, where a doctor on junior faculty, staffing a GI oncology clinic 4 days a week, is also volunteering to collect and organize new cases for the tumor board, and is writing several letters of intent for pharmaceutical trials. They are saying “yes” to 90% of the requests for their time, he said, and the result is they go home “most days feeling like their tank is on empty.”
“Then this person gets asked by the division chief to serve on the hospital’s pain committee,” he said, “regardless of the fact that this is not necessarily in their clinical or research interests.”
“So this is really a bit of an [out of] left field request, and how does this person address this?”
Dr. Kamal said that a useful concept to consider is something commonly ascribed to teenagers, that of the fear of missing out, or FOMO.
The problem is that, “due to this concept of FOMO, when opportunities come your way, saying ‘no’ to them gives rise to the question: What if the opportunity never comes back?”
But Dr. Kamal also reminded the audience that “without being able to say no to things ... your capacity will go down.”
“That’s really important to recognize, because for a long time, healing professions have been thought of as [having] people that can continue to expand and expand and expand, without calling out this concept of inflation.”
This is really about “being true to yourself,” and acknowledging that “no one is going to set boundaries for you.”
“That was a tough lesson I learned in my career,” Dr. Kamal commented, and when he looked for guidance, he found that “everyone is struggling with this.”
Setting boundaries, he emphasized, requires “a certain amount of looking inward ... and it requires some bravery.”
“You just have to ask yourself: Is the only reason you’re going to do something because of FOMO?” Dr. Kamal commented. “Maybe that’s okay, but you have to acknowledge that’s the case.”
Dr. Chatwal reported a relationship with Merck. Dr. Marron reported relationships with Genzyme, Partner Therapeutics, ROM Technologies, Arnett, Draper, & Hagood, and Trentalange & Kelley. Dr. Kamal reported relationships with Acclivity Health, Prepped Health, Private Diagnostic Clinic, AstraZeneca, Care4ward, Compassus, HERON, Janssen Oncology, Medtronic, New Century Health, UnitedHealth Group, and Janssen Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – in order to protect their well-being and reduce their risk of burnout.
This was the message from speakers at a special session on “Setting Boundaries” during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Monica Sheila Chatwal, MD, a medical oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla., suggested that, like a painting in a museum, physicians should have “some level of guardrail” to protect their knowledge and expertise, and also their ability to be able to continue to care for patients.
Having set boundaries “provides more emotional and cognitive flexibility, and less uncertainty, in the relationships that we have with our colleagues, with our patients, with everyone around us,” she argued.
“More importantly, boundaries acknowledge that, as humans, we are multifaceted, multidimensional people,” and that “we have lives outside of medicine, much as we may or may not want to admit that.
“It’s great to be devoted to what we do, but there are so many other aspects of ourselves that make us who we are, and that is wonderful,” she said.
A calling, not a job
However, the idea of demarcating one’s professional and personal life can go against the still-persistent idea that being a doctor is a calling rather than a job.
“I don’t think it matters whether you call it a job or a calling,” commented another speaker at the session, Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer.
But even if it is a calling, which implies that “you are supposed to devote all of yourself to the work and not to anything else,” there is still a need for setting boundaries, he argued. Saying “no” and allowing “yourself to be yourself” are important measures, Dr. Marron emphasized, as taking time out can make you a better clinician.
Crucial to that is being able to communicate with colleagues and share a degree of “vulnerability,” added Dr. Chatwal. “Showing that you’re vulnerable not only to your trainees, but also to your staff and to your patients really normalizes everything.”
“I have nurses who are feeling like they have to work 24/7 and manage their inbox to answer all of their messages, because they feel like they have to keep up.
“But it’s nice for me to be able to model that and say: ‘Listen, I want you to know it’s not urgent, please take 24 hours and we’ll come back to it.’ ”
Communicating with patients
Dr. Chatwal noted that, while there are clear boundaries related to sexual or physical relationships between doctors and patients and around not treating family members or friends, the boundaries pertaining to communication, and “how frequently [patients] have access to us ... are not so clearly defined.”
The advent of telemedicine has added to that, she believes, as it offers a “patient portal that can allow access 24/7.”
“Does that mean we as physicians or providers also give that level of access? Are we supposed to check messages at all periods of time?”
“More and more people are becoming more cognizant of this,” she commented, noting that the issue has taken on greater import with the rise of social media and the “ability for our patients to request us as friends.”
She pointed out that former president of the American College of Physicians Wayne J. Riley, MD, MPH, MBA, suggested doctors should maintain an air of detachment with their patients, as “it allows us to protect ourselves and continue to provide that great level of care.”
On the other hand, she noted that there has been a sea change in how patients see doctors. Whereas in the past, medicine “was very paternalistic” with doctors seen as the “be all and end all,” now patients tend to be more knowledgeable and Dr. Google “makes them much more engaged in their care.”
But this can also cause problems when patients become “demanding for certain treatments,” she said.
Limits to ethical care?
Dr. Marron posed the question: “Is there a limit to my ethical obligations to ethical care?”
He described a hypothetical scenario where a patient has found their doctor’s email address online and they now sends “frequent emails, despite very clear instructions to use the on-call paging system for something that’s urgent, and the electronic health record messaging system otherwise.”
This patient’s behavior is “causing a huge amount of stress” for the doctor, and this is affecting their care of other patients, as well as their academic work and home life.
Dr. Marron asked the audience: Would it be ethically acceptable to stop seeing such a patient?
Taking a quick straw poll of the audience, Dr. Marron noted that there were “not a lot of hands” raised in favor.
He suggested this is because the notion of nonabandonment comes into play, in which there is an obligation to not let patients go without providing adequate time for them to find an alternative clinician.
In this scenario, for example, the doctor could find “several local oncologists who are willing to accept the patient,” as well as talk the situation through with a trusted colleagues, and only then “compassionately but resolutely” tell the patient that they will be transferred.
Dr. Marron acknowledged that this may seem at odds with the theme of this year’s ASCO annual meeting, which emphasizes “partnering with patients.” But he argued that “it doesn’t have to be.”
When thoughtfully done, setting boundaries “can ethically allow us to give more to, and partner more with, our patients, while supporting our well-being, sense of purpose, and job satisfaction,” he argued.
Goldilocks situation
Speaking more broadly, Dr. Marron said that boundaries might be considered on a spectrum.
Too few boundaries can lead to conflicts of interest, loss of balance in the patient-physician relationship, and overengagement, while too many boundaries may result in insufficient connection with patients, thus reducing the “human element” and increasing a sense of disengagement.
Either way, “we run the risk of having decreased satisfaction what with what we’re doing, and decreasing the quality of patient care.”
“It’s a little bit of a Goldilocks situation: You want to find just the right balance, somewhere in the middle,” he said.
In the past, issues around having too few boundaries related to conflicts of interest. This reduced trust in the medical profession, he commented, which may have affected patient outcomes, and certainly increased the risk of reduced well-being and burnout.
“Today, we probably still lie on the end of the spectrum with too few boundaries,” Dr. Marron said, “but in a very different way, as we worry about limited work-life balance, and always being connected.”
“I don’t think there’s anybody in the room who doesn’t have some kind of electronic device, either in their hand or not too far from their hand,” he continued.
Moreover, “the patients that we’re taking care of have a greater amount of complexity than they’ve ever had before ... [with] greater numbers of needs than ever before,” and as a result, they require “a greater amount of our time as clinicians.”
Just as with the lack of boundaries in the past, this “runs the risk of us having decreased well-being and an increased risk of burnout,” he suggested.
Wearing several hats
The third speaker, Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, associate professor of medicine and population health, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society, said that every oncologist wears several “hats” in addition to being a clinician.
These may include, in his case, being “a father, a husband, and a brother, and a soccer coach, and a lot of different things.”
Dr. Kamal underlined that recognizing these various roles is “really important,” especially when it comes to the “moment of comparison with others,” as there is a temptation to see one’s own complexity but not that of a colleague.
“The question is: What are all the other competing priorities that a person faces?”
For example, a person’s tally of publications is “just one of many metrics” when it comes to measuring the “success of a career, and, frankly, I’m not sure that’s one of the good ones,” Dr. Kamal said.
He recalled how a mentor of his when he was at the Mayo Clinic had a “remarkable dip” in the number of publications at a certain point in his career, and he explained to Dr. Kamal that this was the time “when my kids needed me the most.”
“That was really important,” Dr. Kamal said, “because it taught me a lesson about having mentors in your life that are not only focused on your career and academic success, but also those who are very interested in the other hats that you wear.”
Fear of saying no
One way of setting boundaries is saying no to certain requests, Dr. Kamal commented.
He gave an example from his own life – when he was at a soccer game and received a call on his cell from a patient who has seen test results before he has had a chance to review them.
Dr. Kamal also painted a hypothetical scenario, where a doctor on junior faculty, staffing a GI oncology clinic 4 days a week, is also volunteering to collect and organize new cases for the tumor board, and is writing several letters of intent for pharmaceutical trials. They are saying “yes” to 90% of the requests for their time, he said, and the result is they go home “most days feeling like their tank is on empty.”
“Then this person gets asked by the division chief to serve on the hospital’s pain committee,” he said, “regardless of the fact that this is not necessarily in their clinical or research interests.”
“So this is really a bit of an [out of] left field request, and how does this person address this?”
Dr. Kamal said that a useful concept to consider is something commonly ascribed to teenagers, that of the fear of missing out, or FOMO.
The problem is that, “due to this concept of FOMO, when opportunities come your way, saying ‘no’ to them gives rise to the question: What if the opportunity never comes back?”
But Dr. Kamal also reminded the audience that “without being able to say no to things ... your capacity will go down.”
“That’s really important to recognize, because for a long time, healing professions have been thought of as [having] people that can continue to expand and expand and expand, without calling out this concept of inflation.”
This is really about “being true to yourself,” and acknowledging that “no one is going to set boundaries for you.”
“That was a tough lesson I learned in my career,” Dr. Kamal commented, and when he looked for guidance, he found that “everyone is struggling with this.”
Setting boundaries, he emphasized, requires “a certain amount of looking inward ... and it requires some bravery.”
“You just have to ask yourself: Is the only reason you’re going to do something because of FOMO?” Dr. Kamal commented. “Maybe that’s okay, but you have to acknowledge that’s the case.”
Dr. Chatwal reported a relationship with Merck. Dr. Marron reported relationships with Genzyme, Partner Therapeutics, ROM Technologies, Arnett, Draper, & Hagood, and Trentalange & Kelley. Dr. Kamal reported relationships with Acclivity Health, Prepped Health, Private Diagnostic Clinic, AstraZeneca, Care4ward, Compassus, HERON, Janssen Oncology, Medtronic, New Century Health, UnitedHealth Group, and Janssen Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
Less therapy may suit older patients with breast cancer
CHICAGO – By definition, all clinical care is – or should be – patient-centered care, and that is especially true for older women with early stage breast cancer.
“Older women need to be informed of the benefits and risks of their treatment options, including the option of omitting a treatment,” said Mara Schonberg, MD, MPH, of the division of general medicine and primary care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
“High quality shared decision-making considers a woman’s risk of recurrence, her tumor characteristics, her overall prognosis based on her general health, the lag-time to benefit from the treatment – how long will it take for this treatment to likely have an effect or a real chance of having any benefit for her – and her values and preferences,” she explained. Dr. Schonberg was speaking at a session on the management of care for older women with breast cancer held during the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.
, Dr. Schonberg said.
For example, patients may need to choose between mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS), whether to have radiotherapy after BCS, what type of radiotherapy (e.g., whole breast, partial breast, accelerated partial breast irradiation, boost dose) to have, whether to undergo a lymph node biopsy, and whether to opt for primary endocrine therapy instead of surgery or radiation.
“It is really important that we think about all these decisions that older women face in their preference-sensitive decisions and that we include them in the decision-making, probably even starting at the time of mammography,” Dr. Schonberg said.
Decision-making partnership
Doctor–patient shared decision making improves patient care by helping the patients understand the best available evidence on the risks and benefits of specific choices and their alternatives, Dr. Schonberg said. Discussing and considering all the available options allows the doctor and patient to arrive together at an informed decision based on the individual patient’s needs and preferences, she emphasized.
“It’s particularly useful when there are multiple treatment options, when there’s uncertainty regarding the evidence or uncertainty regarding which patients may benefit or on the outcome, when there are both treatment advantages and disadvantages that patients must weigh, and when the decision is high impact, like for breast cancer treatment,” she said.
Shared decision-making can be complicated by barriers of time, how care is organized, lack of clinician training in patient-centered communication, and mistaken assumptions on the part of clinicians about a particular patient’s preferences or willingness to participate in the process.
Dr. Schonberg and colleagues created the website ePrognosis to consolidate prognostic indices designed to aid clinical decision-making for older adults who do not have a dominant terminal diagnosis. The site contains links to prognostic calculators, information about time to benefit for various cancer screening programs based on life expectancy, and helpful information about communicating information about prognosis, risks, and benefits to patients.
De-escalating surgery
Also at the session, Jennifer Tseng, MD, medical director of breast surgery at City of Hope Orange County Cancer Center, Irvine, Calif., discussed de-escalation of locoregional therapy. For some patients, this may mean skipping surgery or radiation.
“How do we de-escalate the extent of surgery, the extent of morbidity that we are imparting on our patients with surgery but still maximizing and preserving oncological outcomes?” she asked.
Currently more than 30% of new breast cancer diagnoses are in women age 70 and older, and estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative disease is the majority biomarker profile.
At present, more than 70% of women with breast cancer in this older population will receive axillary surgery and/or radiation.
But for many patients with early, node-negative breast cancers with favorable tumor characteristics, less extensive surgery may be an appropriate option, especially for patients who have other significant comorbidities, Dr. Tseng said.
“Just at baseline, we know that mastectomy is a harder operation, it’s a harder recovery. You may be incorporating additional surgery such as reconstructive surgery, so breast-conserving surgery is always considered less invasive, less morbid,” she said.
“Do we absolutely have to do a mastectomy for a patient who has a second episode of cancer in the same breast? The answer is no,” she said, adding that omitting axillary surgery in early-stage disease may also be safe for some older patients.
De-escalating radiotherapy
Options for de-escalating radiation therapy include shortening the course of treatment with hypofractionation or ultra hypofractionation, reduction of treatment volumes with partial breast radiation, reducing radiation dose to normal tissues, or even in appropriate cases eliminating radiation entirely, Dr. Tseng said.
“My radiation oncologist turned to me and said, ‘This patient is now eligible for 3 days [or radiation] based on the latest trial we have open at City of Hope.’ I was like, wow, we went from 6 weeks to 3 days of radiation, but that is in the appropriate patient population with those early stage, really more favorable tumor characteristics,” she said.
Moving forward, the debate in radiation oncology is likely to focus on the option of ultra hypofractionation vs no radiation, she added.
Regarding reducing radiation volume, Dr. Tseng noted that most in-breast tumor recurrences happen within 1 cm of the original tumor bed, and partial breast irradiation targets the tumor bed with a 1- to 2-cm margin and provides excellent clinical outcomes with minimal adverse events, allowing for rapid recovery.
Deep inspiration breath holds and prone-positioning of patients with left-side tumors during beam delivery can also significantly decrease the dose to normal tissues, an especially important consideration for patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, she said.
Radiation may also be deferred in many older patients who may benefit from endocrine therapy alone and in those who have a very early stage and less aggressive tumor type.
Systemic therapy in the older patient
Etienne GC Brain, PhD, of the department of medical oncology at the Curie Institute in Paris and Saint-Cloud, France, reviewed evidence regarding systemic therapy in older patients with high-risk breast cancers.
For patients with triple-negative breast cancer pathologic stage T1b or greater he usually advises adjuvant chemotherapy with the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy if breast-conserving surgery is a goal; for patients with HER2-positive disease, he advises 1 year of therapy with an anti-HER2 agent.
Shorter HER2 regimens may be possible for older patients, and frail older adults may have good outcomes with HER2 therapy alone, as shown recently by Japanese investigators, Dr. Brain noted.
“For lumimal disease, endocrine therapy remains the standard of treatment for me, and chemo, of course can be considered in higher risk, but the problem is we don’t know how to define this high risk, given the poor guidance provided by gene expression profiles,” he said.
For older patients, longer follow-up is needed to assess treatment benefit vs. life expectancy, Dr. Brain said, warning that the standard of care established in younger patients cannot be easily extrapolated to the care of older patients.
Dr. Schonberg disclosed authorship of review pages on preventive health for older adults for UpToDate. Dr. Tseng disclosed that she is a breast surgeon and that her discussion of radiation therapy may reflect personal bias. Dr. Brain disclosed honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, and Seagen, consulting/advising for Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sandoz-Novartis, and travel expenses from Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – By definition, all clinical care is – or should be – patient-centered care, and that is especially true for older women with early stage breast cancer.
“Older women need to be informed of the benefits and risks of their treatment options, including the option of omitting a treatment,” said Mara Schonberg, MD, MPH, of the division of general medicine and primary care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
“High quality shared decision-making considers a woman’s risk of recurrence, her tumor characteristics, her overall prognosis based on her general health, the lag-time to benefit from the treatment – how long will it take for this treatment to likely have an effect or a real chance of having any benefit for her – and her values and preferences,” she explained. Dr. Schonberg was speaking at a session on the management of care for older women with breast cancer held during the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.
, Dr. Schonberg said.
For example, patients may need to choose between mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS), whether to have radiotherapy after BCS, what type of radiotherapy (e.g., whole breast, partial breast, accelerated partial breast irradiation, boost dose) to have, whether to undergo a lymph node biopsy, and whether to opt for primary endocrine therapy instead of surgery or radiation.
“It is really important that we think about all these decisions that older women face in their preference-sensitive decisions and that we include them in the decision-making, probably even starting at the time of mammography,” Dr. Schonberg said.
Decision-making partnership
Doctor–patient shared decision making improves patient care by helping the patients understand the best available evidence on the risks and benefits of specific choices and their alternatives, Dr. Schonberg said. Discussing and considering all the available options allows the doctor and patient to arrive together at an informed decision based on the individual patient’s needs and preferences, she emphasized.
“It’s particularly useful when there are multiple treatment options, when there’s uncertainty regarding the evidence or uncertainty regarding which patients may benefit or on the outcome, when there are both treatment advantages and disadvantages that patients must weigh, and when the decision is high impact, like for breast cancer treatment,” she said.
Shared decision-making can be complicated by barriers of time, how care is organized, lack of clinician training in patient-centered communication, and mistaken assumptions on the part of clinicians about a particular patient’s preferences or willingness to participate in the process.
Dr. Schonberg and colleagues created the website ePrognosis to consolidate prognostic indices designed to aid clinical decision-making for older adults who do not have a dominant terminal diagnosis. The site contains links to prognostic calculators, information about time to benefit for various cancer screening programs based on life expectancy, and helpful information about communicating information about prognosis, risks, and benefits to patients.
De-escalating surgery
Also at the session, Jennifer Tseng, MD, medical director of breast surgery at City of Hope Orange County Cancer Center, Irvine, Calif., discussed de-escalation of locoregional therapy. For some patients, this may mean skipping surgery or radiation.
“How do we de-escalate the extent of surgery, the extent of morbidity that we are imparting on our patients with surgery but still maximizing and preserving oncological outcomes?” she asked.
Currently more than 30% of new breast cancer diagnoses are in women age 70 and older, and estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative disease is the majority biomarker profile.
At present, more than 70% of women with breast cancer in this older population will receive axillary surgery and/or radiation.
But for many patients with early, node-negative breast cancers with favorable tumor characteristics, less extensive surgery may be an appropriate option, especially for patients who have other significant comorbidities, Dr. Tseng said.
“Just at baseline, we know that mastectomy is a harder operation, it’s a harder recovery. You may be incorporating additional surgery such as reconstructive surgery, so breast-conserving surgery is always considered less invasive, less morbid,” she said.
“Do we absolutely have to do a mastectomy for a patient who has a second episode of cancer in the same breast? The answer is no,” she said, adding that omitting axillary surgery in early-stage disease may also be safe for some older patients.
De-escalating radiotherapy
Options for de-escalating radiation therapy include shortening the course of treatment with hypofractionation or ultra hypofractionation, reduction of treatment volumes with partial breast radiation, reducing radiation dose to normal tissues, or even in appropriate cases eliminating radiation entirely, Dr. Tseng said.
“My radiation oncologist turned to me and said, ‘This patient is now eligible for 3 days [or radiation] based on the latest trial we have open at City of Hope.’ I was like, wow, we went from 6 weeks to 3 days of radiation, but that is in the appropriate patient population with those early stage, really more favorable tumor characteristics,” she said.
Moving forward, the debate in radiation oncology is likely to focus on the option of ultra hypofractionation vs no radiation, she added.
Regarding reducing radiation volume, Dr. Tseng noted that most in-breast tumor recurrences happen within 1 cm of the original tumor bed, and partial breast irradiation targets the tumor bed with a 1- to 2-cm margin and provides excellent clinical outcomes with minimal adverse events, allowing for rapid recovery.
Deep inspiration breath holds and prone-positioning of patients with left-side tumors during beam delivery can also significantly decrease the dose to normal tissues, an especially important consideration for patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, she said.
Radiation may also be deferred in many older patients who may benefit from endocrine therapy alone and in those who have a very early stage and less aggressive tumor type.
Systemic therapy in the older patient
Etienne GC Brain, PhD, of the department of medical oncology at the Curie Institute in Paris and Saint-Cloud, France, reviewed evidence regarding systemic therapy in older patients with high-risk breast cancers.
For patients with triple-negative breast cancer pathologic stage T1b or greater he usually advises adjuvant chemotherapy with the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy if breast-conserving surgery is a goal; for patients with HER2-positive disease, he advises 1 year of therapy with an anti-HER2 agent.
Shorter HER2 regimens may be possible for older patients, and frail older adults may have good outcomes with HER2 therapy alone, as shown recently by Japanese investigators, Dr. Brain noted.
“For lumimal disease, endocrine therapy remains the standard of treatment for me, and chemo, of course can be considered in higher risk, but the problem is we don’t know how to define this high risk, given the poor guidance provided by gene expression profiles,” he said.
For older patients, longer follow-up is needed to assess treatment benefit vs. life expectancy, Dr. Brain said, warning that the standard of care established in younger patients cannot be easily extrapolated to the care of older patients.
Dr. Schonberg disclosed authorship of review pages on preventive health for older adults for UpToDate. Dr. Tseng disclosed that she is a breast surgeon and that her discussion of radiation therapy may reflect personal bias. Dr. Brain disclosed honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, and Seagen, consulting/advising for Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sandoz-Novartis, and travel expenses from Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – By definition, all clinical care is – or should be – patient-centered care, and that is especially true for older women with early stage breast cancer.
“Older women need to be informed of the benefits and risks of their treatment options, including the option of omitting a treatment,” said Mara Schonberg, MD, MPH, of the division of general medicine and primary care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
“High quality shared decision-making considers a woman’s risk of recurrence, her tumor characteristics, her overall prognosis based on her general health, the lag-time to benefit from the treatment – how long will it take for this treatment to likely have an effect or a real chance of having any benefit for her – and her values and preferences,” she explained. Dr. Schonberg was speaking at a session on the management of care for older women with breast cancer held during the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting.
, Dr. Schonberg said.
For example, patients may need to choose between mastectomy or breast conserving surgery (BCS), whether to have radiotherapy after BCS, what type of radiotherapy (e.g., whole breast, partial breast, accelerated partial breast irradiation, boost dose) to have, whether to undergo a lymph node biopsy, and whether to opt for primary endocrine therapy instead of surgery or radiation.
“It is really important that we think about all these decisions that older women face in their preference-sensitive decisions and that we include them in the decision-making, probably even starting at the time of mammography,” Dr. Schonberg said.
Decision-making partnership
Doctor–patient shared decision making improves patient care by helping the patients understand the best available evidence on the risks and benefits of specific choices and their alternatives, Dr. Schonberg said. Discussing and considering all the available options allows the doctor and patient to arrive together at an informed decision based on the individual patient’s needs and preferences, she emphasized.
“It’s particularly useful when there are multiple treatment options, when there’s uncertainty regarding the evidence or uncertainty regarding which patients may benefit or on the outcome, when there are both treatment advantages and disadvantages that patients must weigh, and when the decision is high impact, like for breast cancer treatment,” she said.
Shared decision-making can be complicated by barriers of time, how care is organized, lack of clinician training in patient-centered communication, and mistaken assumptions on the part of clinicians about a particular patient’s preferences or willingness to participate in the process.
Dr. Schonberg and colleagues created the website ePrognosis to consolidate prognostic indices designed to aid clinical decision-making for older adults who do not have a dominant terminal diagnosis. The site contains links to prognostic calculators, information about time to benefit for various cancer screening programs based on life expectancy, and helpful information about communicating information about prognosis, risks, and benefits to patients.
De-escalating surgery
Also at the session, Jennifer Tseng, MD, medical director of breast surgery at City of Hope Orange County Cancer Center, Irvine, Calif., discussed de-escalation of locoregional therapy. For some patients, this may mean skipping surgery or radiation.
“How do we de-escalate the extent of surgery, the extent of morbidity that we are imparting on our patients with surgery but still maximizing and preserving oncological outcomes?” she asked.
Currently more than 30% of new breast cancer diagnoses are in women age 70 and older, and estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative disease is the majority biomarker profile.
At present, more than 70% of women with breast cancer in this older population will receive axillary surgery and/or radiation.
But for many patients with early, node-negative breast cancers with favorable tumor characteristics, less extensive surgery may be an appropriate option, especially for patients who have other significant comorbidities, Dr. Tseng said.
“Just at baseline, we know that mastectomy is a harder operation, it’s a harder recovery. You may be incorporating additional surgery such as reconstructive surgery, so breast-conserving surgery is always considered less invasive, less morbid,” she said.
“Do we absolutely have to do a mastectomy for a patient who has a second episode of cancer in the same breast? The answer is no,” she said, adding that omitting axillary surgery in early-stage disease may also be safe for some older patients.
De-escalating radiotherapy
Options for de-escalating radiation therapy include shortening the course of treatment with hypofractionation or ultra hypofractionation, reduction of treatment volumes with partial breast radiation, reducing radiation dose to normal tissues, or even in appropriate cases eliminating radiation entirely, Dr. Tseng said.
“My radiation oncologist turned to me and said, ‘This patient is now eligible for 3 days [or radiation] based on the latest trial we have open at City of Hope.’ I was like, wow, we went from 6 weeks to 3 days of radiation, but that is in the appropriate patient population with those early stage, really more favorable tumor characteristics,” she said.
Moving forward, the debate in radiation oncology is likely to focus on the option of ultra hypofractionation vs no radiation, she added.
Regarding reducing radiation volume, Dr. Tseng noted that most in-breast tumor recurrences happen within 1 cm of the original tumor bed, and partial breast irradiation targets the tumor bed with a 1- to 2-cm margin and provides excellent clinical outcomes with minimal adverse events, allowing for rapid recovery.
Deep inspiration breath holds and prone-positioning of patients with left-side tumors during beam delivery can also significantly decrease the dose to normal tissues, an especially important consideration for patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, she said.
Radiation may also be deferred in many older patients who may benefit from endocrine therapy alone and in those who have a very early stage and less aggressive tumor type.
Systemic therapy in the older patient
Etienne GC Brain, PhD, of the department of medical oncology at the Curie Institute in Paris and Saint-Cloud, France, reviewed evidence regarding systemic therapy in older patients with high-risk breast cancers.
For patients with triple-negative breast cancer pathologic stage T1b or greater he usually advises adjuvant chemotherapy with the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy if breast-conserving surgery is a goal; for patients with HER2-positive disease, he advises 1 year of therapy with an anti-HER2 agent.
Shorter HER2 regimens may be possible for older patients, and frail older adults may have good outcomes with HER2 therapy alone, as shown recently by Japanese investigators, Dr. Brain noted.
“For lumimal disease, endocrine therapy remains the standard of treatment for me, and chemo, of course can be considered in higher risk, but the problem is we don’t know how to define this high risk, given the poor guidance provided by gene expression profiles,” he said.
For older patients, longer follow-up is needed to assess treatment benefit vs. life expectancy, Dr. Brain said, warning that the standard of care established in younger patients cannot be easily extrapolated to the care of older patients.
Dr. Schonberg disclosed authorship of review pages on preventive health for older adults for UpToDate. Dr. Tseng disclosed that she is a breast surgeon and that her discussion of radiation therapy may reflect personal bias. Dr. Brain disclosed honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, and Seagen, consulting/advising for Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sandoz-Novartis, and travel expenses from Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
New study backs up capecitabine dosing practice in metastatic BC
Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups, but patients on the alternative schedule experienced fewer cases of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and stomatitis, and also had fewer discontinuations and dose modifications.
The Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of capecitabine is 1,250 mg/m2, but 14 days of treatment can lead to significant toxicity, said Qamar Khan, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “Mathematical models applied to xenograft [animal model] data suggest that the maximum cytotoxic effect of capecitabine occurs after about 7 days of treatment, beyond which time only toxicity increases,” Dr. Khan said during his talk on the randomized control trial.
The researchers randomized 153 patients to receive a fixed 1,500-mg capecitabine dose twice per day on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule (7/7), or the 1,250–mg/m2 dose twice per day for 14 days followed by 7 days off (14/7). The median age was 60 years, and 85.6% were White, 8.5% were African American, 3.3% were Hispanic, 0.7% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2.0% were other. With respect to disease characteristics, 44% had visceral metastasis, 78% were hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, and 11% had triple-negative breast cancer. About two-thirds (65%) had received no prior chemotherapy.
Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 36 months for PFS was 13.9 months in the 7/7 group and 14.6 months in the 14/7 group (difference, 0.7 months; 95.5% CI, –3.14 to 4.57 months). The objective response rate was 8.9% in the 7/7 group and 19.6% in the 14/7 group (P = .11). Median OS was 19.8 months in the 7/7 group and 17.5 months in the 14/7 group (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .17). The RMST at 47 months for OS was 24.5 months in the 7/7 group and 20.9 months in the 14/7 group (difference, –3.6 months; 95% CI, –8.89 to 1.54 months).
The researchers found no differences in subgroup analyses by visceral metastasis, breast cancer subtype, or number of lines of previous therapy.
The toxicity profile of 7/7 was better with respect to grade 2-4 diarrhea (2.5% vs. 20.5%, P = .0008), grade 2-4 HFS (3.8% vs. 15.1%; P = .0019), and grade 2-4 mucositis (0% vs. 5.5%; P =.0001).
Findings back up clinical practice
“The fixed-dose capecitabine dosing is something that’s been done a lot in practice, because a lot of practitioners recognize that giving the drug for two weeks in a row with a week break is overly toxic, so it’s something we’ve been doing in the community for quite a while,” said Michael Danso, MD, who comoderated the session.
Still, the safety and efficacy data back up that general clinical practice. “There was a randomized trial and colon cancer that didn’t show [equivalent outcomes with the alternate dosing schedule]. So to see that it’s safe and effective in breast cancer is an important [finding],” said Dr. Danso, who is the Research Director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.
During the question-and-answer following the talk, Jeffrey Kirshner, MD, a medical oncologist at Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, East Syracuse, noted that his practice has used a similar schedule for years. “I really commend you for doing that study. It really supports what many of us in the real world have been doing for many years. We figured this out empirically, both upfront and when patients can’t tolerate [the 14/7 schedule].”
Fixed dose versus body surface area
Dr. Kirshner also said his practice uses a dose of 1 g/m2 of body surface area on a 7/7 schedule rather than a fixed dose as was done in Dr. Khan’s study. “If you use the higher dose, you might have seen a higher response rate because many of our patients, as you know, have a body surface [BSA] area much greater than 1.5 g/m2.”
Dr. Khan responded that there is little data available on BSA dosing. “We selected 1,500 mg because a lot of people are practicing that, and for convenience, and that most patients who started at a higher dose eventually wound up on a dose of 1,500 mg twice daily.”
Dr. Kirshner also pointed out that the study was conducted in a population with metastatic disease. “I think we need to emphasize that we do not use the 7/7 regimen in a potentially curative setting, such as the CREATE-X regimen for triple-negative [breast cancer].”
Dr. Khan agreed. “I would use the same dose as the CREATE-X trial in the adjuvant setting,” he responded.
Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kirshner have no relevant financial disclosures.
Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups, but patients on the alternative schedule experienced fewer cases of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and stomatitis, and also had fewer discontinuations and dose modifications.
The Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of capecitabine is 1,250 mg/m2, but 14 days of treatment can lead to significant toxicity, said Qamar Khan, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “Mathematical models applied to xenograft [animal model] data suggest that the maximum cytotoxic effect of capecitabine occurs after about 7 days of treatment, beyond which time only toxicity increases,” Dr. Khan said during his talk on the randomized control trial.
The researchers randomized 153 patients to receive a fixed 1,500-mg capecitabine dose twice per day on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule (7/7), or the 1,250–mg/m2 dose twice per day for 14 days followed by 7 days off (14/7). The median age was 60 years, and 85.6% were White, 8.5% were African American, 3.3% were Hispanic, 0.7% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2.0% were other. With respect to disease characteristics, 44% had visceral metastasis, 78% were hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, and 11% had triple-negative breast cancer. About two-thirds (65%) had received no prior chemotherapy.
Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 36 months for PFS was 13.9 months in the 7/7 group and 14.6 months in the 14/7 group (difference, 0.7 months; 95.5% CI, –3.14 to 4.57 months). The objective response rate was 8.9% in the 7/7 group and 19.6% in the 14/7 group (P = .11). Median OS was 19.8 months in the 7/7 group and 17.5 months in the 14/7 group (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .17). The RMST at 47 months for OS was 24.5 months in the 7/7 group and 20.9 months in the 14/7 group (difference, –3.6 months; 95% CI, –8.89 to 1.54 months).
The researchers found no differences in subgroup analyses by visceral metastasis, breast cancer subtype, or number of lines of previous therapy.
The toxicity profile of 7/7 was better with respect to grade 2-4 diarrhea (2.5% vs. 20.5%, P = .0008), grade 2-4 HFS (3.8% vs. 15.1%; P = .0019), and grade 2-4 mucositis (0% vs. 5.5%; P =.0001).
Findings back up clinical practice
“The fixed-dose capecitabine dosing is something that’s been done a lot in practice, because a lot of practitioners recognize that giving the drug for two weeks in a row with a week break is overly toxic, so it’s something we’ve been doing in the community for quite a while,” said Michael Danso, MD, who comoderated the session.
Still, the safety and efficacy data back up that general clinical practice. “There was a randomized trial and colon cancer that didn’t show [equivalent outcomes with the alternate dosing schedule]. So to see that it’s safe and effective in breast cancer is an important [finding],” said Dr. Danso, who is the Research Director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.
During the question-and-answer following the talk, Jeffrey Kirshner, MD, a medical oncologist at Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, East Syracuse, noted that his practice has used a similar schedule for years. “I really commend you for doing that study. It really supports what many of us in the real world have been doing for many years. We figured this out empirically, both upfront and when patients can’t tolerate [the 14/7 schedule].”
Fixed dose versus body surface area
Dr. Kirshner also said his practice uses a dose of 1 g/m2 of body surface area on a 7/7 schedule rather than a fixed dose as was done in Dr. Khan’s study. “If you use the higher dose, you might have seen a higher response rate because many of our patients, as you know, have a body surface [BSA] area much greater than 1.5 g/m2.”
Dr. Khan responded that there is little data available on BSA dosing. “We selected 1,500 mg because a lot of people are practicing that, and for convenience, and that most patients who started at a higher dose eventually wound up on a dose of 1,500 mg twice daily.”
Dr. Kirshner also pointed out that the study was conducted in a population with metastatic disease. “I think we need to emphasize that we do not use the 7/7 regimen in a potentially curative setting, such as the CREATE-X regimen for triple-negative [breast cancer].”
Dr. Khan agreed. “I would use the same dose as the CREATE-X trial in the adjuvant setting,” he responded.
Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kirshner have no relevant financial disclosures.
Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between the two groups, but patients on the alternative schedule experienced fewer cases of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and stomatitis, and also had fewer discontinuations and dose modifications.
The Food and Drug Administration–approved dose of capecitabine is 1,250 mg/m2, but 14 days of treatment can lead to significant toxicity, said Qamar Khan, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “Mathematical models applied to xenograft [animal model] data suggest that the maximum cytotoxic effect of capecitabine occurs after about 7 days of treatment, beyond which time only toxicity increases,” Dr. Khan said during his talk on the randomized control trial.
The researchers randomized 153 patients to receive a fixed 1,500-mg capecitabine dose twice per day on a 7-day-on, 7-day-off schedule (7/7), or the 1,250–mg/m2 dose twice per day for 14 days followed by 7 days off (14/7). The median age was 60 years, and 85.6% were White, 8.5% were African American, 3.3% were Hispanic, 0.7% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2.0% were other. With respect to disease characteristics, 44% had visceral metastasis, 78% were hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, and 11% had triple-negative breast cancer. About two-thirds (65%) had received no prior chemotherapy.
Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 36 months for PFS was 13.9 months in the 7/7 group and 14.6 months in the 14/7 group (difference, 0.7 months; 95.5% CI, –3.14 to 4.57 months). The objective response rate was 8.9% in the 7/7 group and 19.6% in the 14/7 group (P = .11). Median OS was 19.8 months in the 7/7 group and 17.5 months in the 14/7 group (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .17). The RMST at 47 months for OS was 24.5 months in the 7/7 group and 20.9 months in the 14/7 group (difference, –3.6 months; 95% CI, –8.89 to 1.54 months).
The researchers found no differences in subgroup analyses by visceral metastasis, breast cancer subtype, or number of lines of previous therapy.
The toxicity profile of 7/7 was better with respect to grade 2-4 diarrhea (2.5% vs. 20.5%, P = .0008), grade 2-4 HFS (3.8% vs. 15.1%; P = .0019), and grade 2-4 mucositis (0% vs. 5.5%; P =.0001).
Findings back up clinical practice
“The fixed-dose capecitabine dosing is something that’s been done a lot in practice, because a lot of practitioners recognize that giving the drug for two weeks in a row with a week break is overly toxic, so it’s something we’ve been doing in the community for quite a while,” said Michael Danso, MD, who comoderated the session.
Still, the safety and efficacy data back up that general clinical practice. “There was a randomized trial and colon cancer that didn’t show [equivalent outcomes with the alternate dosing schedule]. So to see that it’s safe and effective in breast cancer is an important [finding],” said Dr. Danso, who is the Research Director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.
During the question-and-answer following the talk, Jeffrey Kirshner, MD, a medical oncologist at Hematology-Oncology Associates of Central New York, East Syracuse, noted that his practice has used a similar schedule for years. “I really commend you for doing that study. It really supports what many of us in the real world have been doing for many years. We figured this out empirically, both upfront and when patients can’t tolerate [the 14/7 schedule].”
Fixed dose versus body surface area
Dr. Kirshner also said his practice uses a dose of 1 g/m2 of body surface area on a 7/7 schedule rather than a fixed dose as was done in Dr. Khan’s study. “If you use the higher dose, you might have seen a higher response rate because many of our patients, as you know, have a body surface [BSA] area much greater than 1.5 g/m2.”
Dr. Khan responded that there is little data available on BSA dosing. “We selected 1,500 mg because a lot of people are practicing that, and for convenience, and that most patients who started at a higher dose eventually wound up on a dose of 1,500 mg twice daily.”
Dr. Kirshner also pointed out that the study was conducted in a population with metastatic disease. “I think we need to emphasize that we do not use the 7/7 regimen in a potentially curative setting, such as the CREATE-X regimen for triple-negative [breast cancer].”
Dr. Khan agreed. “I would use the same dose as the CREATE-X trial in the adjuvant setting,” he responded.
Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kirshner have no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2023
In TNBC, repeated biopsies may reveal emergent HER2-low expression
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status.
These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."
“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.
In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).
Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.
Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.
At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.
The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.
“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.
After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.
She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.
Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment.
“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.
Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.
*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status.
These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."
“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.
In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).
Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.
Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.
At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.
The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.
“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.
After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.
She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.
Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment.
“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.
Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.
*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status.
These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."
“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.
In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).
Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.
Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.
At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.
The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.
“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.
After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.
She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.
Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment.
“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.
Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.
*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.
FROM ASCO 2023
Breast cancer experts and other HCPs disagree on treatment strategies for early BC
The discrepancy suggests that many providers aren’t aware of the findings of recent landmark trials that formed the basis of the panel’s opinions, said study coauthor Denise A. Yardley, MD, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, in an interview. The findings, based on responses to a treatment decision tool, were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Study methods and results
For the new study, researchers analyzed how 547 providers – and the panel – responded to 10 case scenarios in high-risk HER2– early breast cancer between June 2022 and January 2023.
Among the providers surveyed, 72% identified as physicians, including oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, surgery oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists. One percent said they were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 7% said they were pharmacists, 1% were nurses, and the specific roles of the remaining 19% were unknown, but included medical students, according to Dr. Yardley, who is a breast cancer oncologist.
The study authors developed the free decision tool – available via the medical education company Clinical Care Options – to help oncologists navigate new treatment options for high-risk HER2– early breast cancer. The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved drugs such as abemaciclib, olaparib, and pembrolizumab for the condition.
Health care providers enter details into the tool about their patients along with their intended treatment plans. The tool then shows them recommendations for treatment from a panel of five oncologists with expertise in oncology. The members of the panel based their perspectives on the findings of the KEYNOTE-522 (pembrolizumab), OlympiA (olaparib), and monarchE (abemaciclib) trials.
The oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, who provided recommendations in March 2022, generally agreed about the best treatments, Dr. Yardley said.
The other health care providers surveyed didn’t agree with the breast cancer experts about the best treatment 58.8% of the time.
For example, one scenario describes a HR+, HER2– patient with no deleterious BRCA mutation – or unknown status – who fits the monarchE high-risk criteria. All the breast cancer experts on the panel recommended abemaciclib and endocrine therapy. But 203 providers supported a variety of strategies: endocrine therapy alone (9%), chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (49%), and olaparib and endocrine therapy (2%). Only 37% opted for abemaciclib and endocrine therapy, and 4% were uncertain.
Another scenario describes a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with no residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All the experts agreed on a strategy of no adjuvant therapy plus observation. Forty percent of 25 providers agreed with this approach, but 24% were uncertain, 12% chose pembrolizumab, and 24% chose capecitabine.
In many cases, providers chose more intensive treatment options than the experts did, Dr. Yardley said.
Overtreatment in cancer is often a reflex for oncologists, she said, although “we’re learning to deescalate these treatment algorithms where there is really no benefit [to extra treatment].”
“It’s a challenge for some of these oncologists who are busy and dealing with multiple solid tumor types to keep up with the nuances of a rapidly changing field,” Dr. Yardley noted.
Many community oncologists aren’t specialists in one type of cancer and must try to keep up with treatment recommendations regarding multiple types, she continued.
Decision tool’s value explained
According to the study, 32% of providers changed their treatment choices in clinical practice after they learned about the expert perspectives via the decision tool; 46% said the expert opinions confirmed that their choices were best practice.
The value of the tool is its ability to help providers make better decisions about patient care, Dr. Yardley said. “There seems to be a need for this kind of support.”
In an interview, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center oncologist Adam M. Brufsky, MD, PhD – who wasn’t involved with the study – said he was surprised by the amount of disagreement between the expert and provider perspectives on treatment. However, he noted that community oncologists – unlike the breast cancer experts – often don’t see just one type of cancer.
“You just have to know so much now as an oncologist,” Dr. Brufsky said. He recommended that colleagues take advantage of decision support tools, such as cancer treatment pathways.
The study was funded by AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Yardley has no disclosures, and disclosure information from other authors was not available. Dr. Brufsky discloses consulting support from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck and grants from AstraZeneca.
The discrepancy suggests that many providers aren’t aware of the findings of recent landmark trials that formed the basis of the panel’s opinions, said study coauthor Denise A. Yardley, MD, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, in an interview. The findings, based on responses to a treatment decision tool, were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Study methods and results
For the new study, researchers analyzed how 547 providers – and the panel – responded to 10 case scenarios in high-risk HER2– early breast cancer between June 2022 and January 2023.
Among the providers surveyed, 72% identified as physicians, including oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, surgery oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists. One percent said they were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 7% said they were pharmacists, 1% were nurses, and the specific roles of the remaining 19% were unknown, but included medical students, according to Dr. Yardley, who is a breast cancer oncologist.
The study authors developed the free decision tool – available via the medical education company Clinical Care Options – to help oncologists navigate new treatment options for high-risk HER2– early breast cancer. The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved drugs such as abemaciclib, olaparib, and pembrolizumab for the condition.
Health care providers enter details into the tool about their patients along with their intended treatment plans. The tool then shows them recommendations for treatment from a panel of five oncologists with expertise in oncology. The members of the panel based their perspectives on the findings of the KEYNOTE-522 (pembrolizumab), OlympiA (olaparib), and monarchE (abemaciclib) trials.
The oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, who provided recommendations in March 2022, generally agreed about the best treatments, Dr. Yardley said.
The other health care providers surveyed didn’t agree with the breast cancer experts about the best treatment 58.8% of the time.
For example, one scenario describes a HR+, HER2– patient with no deleterious BRCA mutation – or unknown status – who fits the monarchE high-risk criteria. All the breast cancer experts on the panel recommended abemaciclib and endocrine therapy. But 203 providers supported a variety of strategies: endocrine therapy alone (9%), chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (49%), and olaparib and endocrine therapy (2%). Only 37% opted for abemaciclib and endocrine therapy, and 4% were uncertain.
Another scenario describes a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with no residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All the experts agreed on a strategy of no adjuvant therapy plus observation. Forty percent of 25 providers agreed with this approach, but 24% were uncertain, 12% chose pembrolizumab, and 24% chose capecitabine.
In many cases, providers chose more intensive treatment options than the experts did, Dr. Yardley said.
Overtreatment in cancer is often a reflex for oncologists, she said, although “we’re learning to deescalate these treatment algorithms where there is really no benefit [to extra treatment].”
“It’s a challenge for some of these oncologists who are busy and dealing with multiple solid tumor types to keep up with the nuances of a rapidly changing field,” Dr. Yardley noted.
Many community oncologists aren’t specialists in one type of cancer and must try to keep up with treatment recommendations regarding multiple types, she continued.
Decision tool’s value explained
According to the study, 32% of providers changed their treatment choices in clinical practice after they learned about the expert perspectives via the decision tool; 46% said the expert opinions confirmed that their choices were best practice.
The value of the tool is its ability to help providers make better decisions about patient care, Dr. Yardley said. “There seems to be a need for this kind of support.”
In an interview, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center oncologist Adam M. Brufsky, MD, PhD – who wasn’t involved with the study – said he was surprised by the amount of disagreement between the expert and provider perspectives on treatment. However, he noted that community oncologists – unlike the breast cancer experts – often don’t see just one type of cancer.
“You just have to know so much now as an oncologist,” Dr. Brufsky said. He recommended that colleagues take advantage of decision support tools, such as cancer treatment pathways.
The study was funded by AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Yardley has no disclosures, and disclosure information from other authors was not available. Dr. Brufsky discloses consulting support from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck and grants from AstraZeneca.
The discrepancy suggests that many providers aren’t aware of the findings of recent landmark trials that formed the basis of the panel’s opinions, said study coauthor Denise A. Yardley, MD, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, in an interview. The findings, based on responses to a treatment decision tool, were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Study methods and results
For the new study, researchers analyzed how 547 providers – and the panel – responded to 10 case scenarios in high-risk HER2– early breast cancer between June 2022 and January 2023.
Among the providers surveyed, 72% identified as physicians, including oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, surgery oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists. One percent said they were nurse practitioners or physician assistants, 7% said they were pharmacists, 1% were nurses, and the specific roles of the remaining 19% were unknown, but included medical students, according to Dr. Yardley, who is a breast cancer oncologist.
The study authors developed the free decision tool – available via the medical education company Clinical Care Options – to help oncologists navigate new treatment options for high-risk HER2– early breast cancer. The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved drugs such as abemaciclib, olaparib, and pembrolizumab for the condition.
Health care providers enter details into the tool about their patients along with their intended treatment plans. The tool then shows them recommendations for treatment from a panel of five oncologists with expertise in oncology. The members of the panel based their perspectives on the findings of the KEYNOTE-522 (pembrolizumab), OlympiA (olaparib), and monarchE (abemaciclib) trials.
The oncologists with expertise in breast cancer, who provided recommendations in March 2022, generally agreed about the best treatments, Dr. Yardley said.
The other health care providers surveyed didn’t agree with the breast cancer experts about the best treatment 58.8% of the time.
For example, one scenario describes a HR+, HER2– patient with no deleterious BRCA mutation – or unknown status – who fits the monarchE high-risk criteria. All the breast cancer experts on the panel recommended abemaciclib and endocrine therapy. But 203 providers supported a variety of strategies: endocrine therapy alone (9%), chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy (49%), and olaparib and endocrine therapy (2%). Only 37% opted for abemaciclib and endocrine therapy, and 4% were uncertain.
Another scenario describes a patient with triple-negative breast cancer with no residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All the experts agreed on a strategy of no adjuvant therapy plus observation. Forty percent of 25 providers agreed with this approach, but 24% were uncertain, 12% chose pembrolizumab, and 24% chose capecitabine.
In many cases, providers chose more intensive treatment options than the experts did, Dr. Yardley said.
Overtreatment in cancer is often a reflex for oncologists, she said, although “we’re learning to deescalate these treatment algorithms where there is really no benefit [to extra treatment].”
“It’s a challenge for some of these oncologists who are busy and dealing with multiple solid tumor types to keep up with the nuances of a rapidly changing field,” Dr. Yardley noted.
Many community oncologists aren’t specialists in one type of cancer and must try to keep up with treatment recommendations regarding multiple types, she continued.
Decision tool’s value explained
According to the study, 32% of providers changed their treatment choices in clinical practice after they learned about the expert perspectives via the decision tool; 46% said the expert opinions confirmed that their choices were best practice.
The value of the tool is its ability to help providers make better decisions about patient care, Dr. Yardley said. “There seems to be a need for this kind of support.”
In an interview, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center oncologist Adam M. Brufsky, MD, PhD – who wasn’t involved with the study – said he was surprised by the amount of disagreement between the expert and provider perspectives on treatment. However, he noted that community oncologists – unlike the breast cancer experts – often don’t see just one type of cancer.
“You just have to know so much now as an oncologist,” Dr. Brufsky said. He recommended that colleagues take advantage of decision support tools, such as cancer treatment pathways.
The study was funded by AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Yardley has no disclosures, and disclosure information from other authors was not available. Dr. Brufsky discloses consulting support from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck and grants from AstraZeneca.
AT ASCO 2023
CAR-T hikes overall survival in relapsed/refractory LBCL
.
The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.
The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.
Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.
“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.
Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).
Study details
Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.
Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).
At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).
The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.
Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.
Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.
The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.
.
The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.
The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.
Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.
“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.
Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).
Study details
Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.
Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).
At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).
The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.
Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.
Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.
The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.
.
The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.
The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.
Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.
“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.
Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).
Study details
Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.
Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).
At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).
The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.
Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.
Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.
The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.
FROM ASCO 2023
`Remarkable’: CAR T therapy for CLL/SLL
The phase 1/2 TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial represents “the first pivotal multicenter trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma,” first author Tanya Siddiqi, MD, associate professor in the division of lymphoma, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in a press statement in connection with her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“The durable complete responses observed with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial are remarkable and represent a major step in bringing a personalized, T cell–based treatment approach delivered as a one-time infusion into clinical practice for a complex and historically incurable disease,” she said.
Real-world evidence shows that patients with CLL or SLL who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment with BTKi therapy can have progressively worse outcomes. Moreover, with few other treatment options, research shows that the median time from dual discontinuation of BTKi and venetoclax to subsequent treatment failure or death is just 5.6 months.
“We are seeing a subset of patients now who are progressing on BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, and there is a high, unmet medical need for new, more effective treatments in this patient population,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
With liso-cel showing efficacy in the treatment of large B-cell lymphoma and receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication, the multicenter TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial was launched to investigate the therapy’s effects in r/r CLL/SLL.
In a safety set of 117 patients with r/r CLL or SLL who received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTKi, patients received a single target dose of either 50 (n=9) or 100 × 106 (n = 87) CAR-positive T cells.
The primary efficacy analysis set included 49 patients who were treated with the target dose of 100 x 106 CAR-positive viable T cells of liso-cel.
With a median on-study follow-up of 21.1 months, the primary endpoint of a complete response (CR) and complete response was achieved among 18.4% (n = 9; P = .0006).
Among patients achieving a complete response, no disease progression or deaths were reported, with a median duration of response that was not reached.
The undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) rate was 63.3% in blood and 59.2% in bone marrow, which was associated with progression-free survival.
The overall response rate was 42.9%, which was not statistically significant, and the median duration of an objective response was 35.3 months (95% confidence interval, 11.01 to not reached).
The median time to first response was 1.2 months, and the median time to first complete response was 3.0 months.
The results were consistent in the broader safety set of 117 patients, including those who were heavily pretreated with a median of five prior lines of therapy (range, 2-12) and high-risk disease, with a CR rate of 18.4%.
In terms of safety, no new safety signals were observed, and the treatment’s safety profile was manageable, the authors noted.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), common with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in 85% of patients; however, most cases were low grade; 9% of cases were grade 3, and there were no grade 4 or 5 cases.
Neurologic events occurred among 45%, including grade 3 in 17.9% and grade 4 in 0.9%, with no cases of grade 5.
For treatment of the CRS, 69.2% of patients received tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for the cases of CRS and neurological events.
Of 51 deaths that occurred while on the study, 43 occurred following liso-cel infusion, including 5 caused by treatment-emergent adverse events occurring within 90 days of liso-cel infusion.
One death was determined to be related to liso-cel, involving macrophage activation syndrome–hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.
“The safety profile was manageable, with low rates of grade 3 or higher CRS and neurotoxicity,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
She noted that, as encouraging as the results are, work should continue regarding further improving survival for patients.
“We need to look at this population more closely to see how we can make it even better for them,” she said in her talk.
For instance, “do we need to add maintenance, or do we need to do something else with CAR T therapy? Because one shot of CAR T is buying them a lot of time – 6 or 12 months of progression-free survival, but maybe we can make it even better.”
Dr. Siddiqi noted that she has “a lot of patients” who received CAR T-cell therapy who have not progressed or relapsed after as long as 4 years.
“I also have some patients who did relapse at 3 or 3 and 1/2 years, but everybody is so thankful for having that time of several years without any treatment; without the need for continuous therapy or continuous doctors’ visits. It is actually priceless,” she said.
Largest data set to date
Commenting on the study, Jakub Svoboda, MD, agreed that the findings suggest an important role of liso-cel among the growing numbers of patients who progress despite standard therapies.
“This is an important study and the [results] are very relevant as there is a growing population of patients with CLL/SLL who stopped responding to both BTKi and venetoclax and have limited options,” Dr. Svoboda, a medical oncologist at Penn Medicine, and associate professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“Many of my CLL/SLL patients benefited from BTK inhibitors and venetoclax for years, but it is clear that these are not curative agents, and ultimately our patients need other effective therapeutic options,” he said. “We have seen reports of smaller single-site studies with different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell products used in CLL/SLL in the past, but this multisite study using liso-cel represents the largest data set in over 100 patients with median follow-up of 21 months.”
Liso-cel, like other CAR T-cell treatments – which are derived from patients’ own cells that are then reengineered and delivered via a one-time infusion – has a 4-1BB costimulatory domain. This has the effect of enhancing the expansion and persistence of the CAR T cells.
Significantly, the study establishes that CAR T-cell manufacturing in CLL/SLL patients is feasible on a large scale, “which is important, considering the unique T-lymphocyte biology in CLL/SLL,” Dr. Svoboda remarked.
In terms of efficacy, “I have been mostly impressed by the high degree of undetectable minimal residual disease and the duration of response in the cohort of patients who previously failed both BTKi and venetoclax,” he added. “While there are a few agents used or being developed for patients failing both BTKi and venetoclax, it appears that CAR T-cell therapy has the unique potential to achieve long-term remissions in a subset of these patients.”
Discussant Carolyn Owen, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology and hematological malignancies, University of Calgary (Alta.), and hematologist at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, also in Calgary, also expressed enthusiasm over the encouraging results.
“The results of this study are very exciting,” she said during her discussion in the session.
“What is really important is that, even though this may be a small proportion of all of the patients, if we start offering this therapy a little bit earlier, and don’t wait for people to become completely refractory, we could increase the proportion of patients who are [not relapsing].”
Furthermore, “what’s most groundbreaking about this study is that patients could indeed have a really durable remission,” Dr. Owen added. “Hopefully not relapsing even beyond this 20-month follow up, which we haven’t seen with any of our other therapies.”
The results were also published in The Lancet.
The study was sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi disclosed relationships with Acerta Pharma, Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Svoboda reported ties with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Owen disclosed relationships with Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, AbbVie, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Merck, Incyte, and Seagen.
The phase 1/2 TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial represents “the first pivotal multicenter trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma,” first author Tanya Siddiqi, MD, associate professor in the division of lymphoma, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in a press statement in connection with her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“The durable complete responses observed with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial are remarkable and represent a major step in bringing a personalized, T cell–based treatment approach delivered as a one-time infusion into clinical practice for a complex and historically incurable disease,” she said.
Real-world evidence shows that patients with CLL or SLL who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment with BTKi therapy can have progressively worse outcomes. Moreover, with few other treatment options, research shows that the median time from dual discontinuation of BTKi and venetoclax to subsequent treatment failure or death is just 5.6 months.
“We are seeing a subset of patients now who are progressing on BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, and there is a high, unmet medical need for new, more effective treatments in this patient population,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
With liso-cel showing efficacy in the treatment of large B-cell lymphoma and receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication, the multicenter TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial was launched to investigate the therapy’s effects in r/r CLL/SLL.
In a safety set of 117 patients with r/r CLL or SLL who received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTKi, patients received a single target dose of either 50 (n=9) or 100 × 106 (n = 87) CAR-positive T cells.
The primary efficacy analysis set included 49 patients who were treated with the target dose of 100 x 106 CAR-positive viable T cells of liso-cel.
With a median on-study follow-up of 21.1 months, the primary endpoint of a complete response (CR) and complete response was achieved among 18.4% (n = 9; P = .0006).
Among patients achieving a complete response, no disease progression or deaths were reported, with a median duration of response that was not reached.
The undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) rate was 63.3% in blood and 59.2% in bone marrow, which was associated with progression-free survival.
The overall response rate was 42.9%, which was not statistically significant, and the median duration of an objective response was 35.3 months (95% confidence interval, 11.01 to not reached).
The median time to first response was 1.2 months, and the median time to first complete response was 3.0 months.
The results were consistent in the broader safety set of 117 patients, including those who were heavily pretreated with a median of five prior lines of therapy (range, 2-12) and high-risk disease, with a CR rate of 18.4%.
In terms of safety, no new safety signals were observed, and the treatment’s safety profile was manageable, the authors noted.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), common with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in 85% of patients; however, most cases were low grade; 9% of cases were grade 3, and there were no grade 4 or 5 cases.
Neurologic events occurred among 45%, including grade 3 in 17.9% and grade 4 in 0.9%, with no cases of grade 5.
For treatment of the CRS, 69.2% of patients received tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for the cases of CRS and neurological events.
Of 51 deaths that occurred while on the study, 43 occurred following liso-cel infusion, including 5 caused by treatment-emergent adverse events occurring within 90 days of liso-cel infusion.
One death was determined to be related to liso-cel, involving macrophage activation syndrome–hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.
“The safety profile was manageable, with low rates of grade 3 or higher CRS and neurotoxicity,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
She noted that, as encouraging as the results are, work should continue regarding further improving survival for patients.
“We need to look at this population more closely to see how we can make it even better for them,” she said in her talk.
For instance, “do we need to add maintenance, or do we need to do something else with CAR T therapy? Because one shot of CAR T is buying them a lot of time – 6 or 12 months of progression-free survival, but maybe we can make it even better.”
Dr. Siddiqi noted that she has “a lot of patients” who received CAR T-cell therapy who have not progressed or relapsed after as long as 4 years.
“I also have some patients who did relapse at 3 or 3 and 1/2 years, but everybody is so thankful for having that time of several years without any treatment; without the need for continuous therapy or continuous doctors’ visits. It is actually priceless,” she said.
Largest data set to date
Commenting on the study, Jakub Svoboda, MD, agreed that the findings suggest an important role of liso-cel among the growing numbers of patients who progress despite standard therapies.
“This is an important study and the [results] are very relevant as there is a growing population of patients with CLL/SLL who stopped responding to both BTKi and venetoclax and have limited options,” Dr. Svoboda, a medical oncologist at Penn Medicine, and associate professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“Many of my CLL/SLL patients benefited from BTK inhibitors and venetoclax for years, but it is clear that these are not curative agents, and ultimately our patients need other effective therapeutic options,” he said. “We have seen reports of smaller single-site studies with different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell products used in CLL/SLL in the past, but this multisite study using liso-cel represents the largest data set in over 100 patients with median follow-up of 21 months.”
Liso-cel, like other CAR T-cell treatments – which are derived from patients’ own cells that are then reengineered and delivered via a one-time infusion – has a 4-1BB costimulatory domain. This has the effect of enhancing the expansion and persistence of the CAR T cells.
Significantly, the study establishes that CAR T-cell manufacturing in CLL/SLL patients is feasible on a large scale, “which is important, considering the unique T-lymphocyte biology in CLL/SLL,” Dr. Svoboda remarked.
In terms of efficacy, “I have been mostly impressed by the high degree of undetectable minimal residual disease and the duration of response in the cohort of patients who previously failed both BTKi and venetoclax,” he added. “While there are a few agents used or being developed for patients failing both BTKi and venetoclax, it appears that CAR T-cell therapy has the unique potential to achieve long-term remissions in a subset of these patients.”
Discussant Carolyn Owen, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology and hematological malignancies, University of Calgary (Alta.), and hematologist at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, also in Calgary, also expressed enthusiasm over the encouraging results.
“The results of this study are very exciting,” she said during her discussion in the session.
“What is really important is that, even though this may be a small proportion of all of the patients, if we start offering this therapy a little bit earlier, and don’t wait for people to become completely refractory, we could increase the proportion of patients who are [not relapsing].”
Furthermore, “what’s most groundbreaking about this study is that patients could indeed have a really durable remission,” Dr. Owen added. “Hopefully not relapsing even beyond this 20-month follow up, which we haven’t seen with any of our other therapies.”
The results were also published in The Lancet.
The study was sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi disclosed relationships with Acerta Pharma, Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Svoboda reported ties with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Owen disclosed relationships with Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, AbbVie, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Merck, Incyte, and Seagen.
The phase 1/2 TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial represents “the first pivotal multicenter trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma,” first author Tanya Siddiqi, MD, associate professor in the division of lymphoma, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in a press statement in connection with her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“The durable complete responses observed with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial are remarkable and represent a major step in bringing a personalized, T cell–based treatment approach delivered as a one-time infusion into clinical practice for a complex and historically incurable disease,” she said.
Real-world evidence shows that patients with CLL or SLL who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment with BTKi therapy can have progressively worse outcomes. Moreover, with few other treatment options, research shows that the median time from dual discontinuation of BTKi and venetoclax to subsequent treatment failure or death is just 5.6 months.
“We are seeing a subset of patients now who are progressing on BTK inhibitors and venetoclax, and there is a high, unmet medical need for new, more effective treatments in this patient population,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
With liso-cel showing efficacy in the treatment of large B-cell lymphoma and receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication, the multicenter TRANSCEND CLL 004 trial was launched to investigate the therapy’s effects in r/r CLL/SLL.
In a safety set of 117 patients with r/r CLL or SLL who received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTKi, patients received a single target dose of either 50 (n=9) or 100 × 106 (n = 87) CAR-positive T cells.
The primary efficacy analysis set included 49 patients who were treated with the target dose of 100 x 106 CAR-positive viable T cells of liso-cel.
With a median on-study follow-up of 21.1 months, the primary endpoint of a complete response (CR) and complete response was achieved among 18.4% (n = 9; P = .0006).
Among patients achieving a complete response, no disease progression or deaths were reported, with a median duration of response that was not reached.
The undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) rate was 63.3% in blood and 59.2% in bone marrow, which was associated with progression-free survival.
The overall response rate was 42.9%, which was not statistically significant, and the median duration of an objective response was 35.3 months (95% confidence interval, 11.01 to not reached).
The median time to first response was 1.2 months, and the median time to first complete response was 3.0 months.
The results were consistent in the broader safety set of 117 patients, including those who were heavily pretreated with a median of five prior lines of therapy (range, 2-12) and high-risk disease, with a CR rate of 18.4%.
In terms of safety, no new safety signals were observed, and the treatment’s safety profile was manageable, the authors noted.
Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), common with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in 85% of patients; however, most cases were low grade; 9% of cases were grade 3, and there were no grade 4 or 5 cases.
Neurologic events occurred among 45%, including grade 3 in 17.9% and grade 4 in 0.9%, with no cases of grade 5.
For treatment of the CRS, 69.2% of patients received tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for the cases of CRS and neurological events.
Of 51 deaths that occurred while on the study, 43 occurred following liso-cel infusion, including 5 caused by treatment-emergent adverse events occurring within 90 days of liso-cel infusion.
One death was determined to be related to liso-cel, involving macrophage activation syndrome–hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.
“The safety profile was manageable, with low rates of grade 3 or higher CRS and neurotoxicity,” Dr. Siddiqi said.
She noted that, as encouraging as the results are, work should continue regarding further improving survival for patients.
“We need to look at this population more closely to see how we can make it even better for them,” she said in her talk.
For instance, “do we need to add maintenance, or do we need to do something else with CAR T therapy? Because one shot of CAR T is buying them a lot of time – 6 or 12 months of progression-free survival, but maybe we can make it even better.”
Dr. Siddiqi noted that she has “a lot of patients” who received CAR T-cell therapy who have not progressed or relapsed after as long as 4 years.
“I also have some patients who did relapse at 3 or 3 and 1/2 years, but everybody is so thankful for having that time of several years without any treatment; without the need for continuous therapy or continuous doctors’ visits. It is actually priceless,” she said.
Largest data set to date
Commenting on the study, Jakub Svoboda, MD, agreed that the findings suggest an important role of liso-cel among the growing numbers of patients who progress despite standard therapies.
“This is an important study and the [results] are very relevant as there is a growing population of patients with CLL/SLL who stopped responding to both BTKi and venetoclax and have limited options,” Dr. Svoboda, a medical oncologist at Penn Medicine, and associate professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia, said in an interview.
“Many of my CLL/SLL patients benefited from BTK inhibitors and venetoclax for years, but it is clear that these are not curative agents, and ultimately our patients need other effective therapeutic options,” he said. “We have seen reports of smaller single-site studies with different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell products used in CLL/SLL in the past, but this multisite study using liso-cel represents the largest data set in over 100 patients with median follow-up of 21 months.”
Liso-cel, like other CAR T-cell treatments – which are derived from patients’ own cells that are then reengineered and delivered via a one-time infusion – has a 4-1BB costimulatory domain. This has the effect of enhancing the expansion and persistence of the CAR T cells.
Significantly, the study establishes that CAR T-cell manufacturing in CLL/SLL patients is feasible on a large scale, “which is important, considering the unique T-lymphocyte biology in CLL/SLL,” Dr. Svoboda remarked.
In terms of efficacy, “I have been mostly impressed by the high degree of undetectable minimal residual disease and the duration of response in the cohort of patients who previously failed both BTKi and venetoclax,” he added. “While there are a few agents used or being developed for patients failing both BTKi and venetoclax, it appears that CAR T-cell therapy has the unique potential to achieve long-term remissions in a subset of these patients.”
Discussant Carolyn Owen, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology and hematological malignancies, University of Calgary (Alta.), and hematologist at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, also in Calgary, also expressed enthusiasm over the encouraging results.
“The results of this study are very exciting,” she said during her discussion in the session.
“What is really important is that, even though this may be a small proportion of all of the patients, if we start offering this therapy a little bit earlier, and don’t wait for people to become completely refractory, we could increase the proportion of patients who are [not relapsing].”
Furthermore, “what’s most groundbreaking about this study is that patients could indeed have a really durable remission,” Dr. Owen added. “Hopefully not relapsing even beyond this 20-month follow up, which we haven’t seen with any of our other therapies.”
The results were also published in The Lancet.
The study was sponsored by Juno Therapeutics. Dr. Siddiqi disclosed relationships with Acerta Pharma, Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, Kite, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Svoboda reported ties with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Owen disclosed relationships with Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, AbbVie, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Merck, Incyte, and Seagen.
FROM ASCO 2023
ER+/HER2– breast cancer: Is first or second line CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy better?
That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.
CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.
“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
Study methods and results
The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.
After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.
The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).
The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.
There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.
Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?
The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.
“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”
For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.
During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.
“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?
During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.
“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.
“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.
Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.
“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.
The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.
That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.
CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.
“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
Study methods and results
The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.
After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.
The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).
The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.
There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.
Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?
The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.
“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”
For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.
During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.
“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?
During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.
“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.
“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.
Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.
“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.
The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.
That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.
CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.
“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
Study methods and results
The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.
After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.
The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).
The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.
There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.
Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?
The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.
“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”
For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.
During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.
“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?
During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.
“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.
“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.
Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.
“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.
The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.
AT ASCO 2023