User login
‘Urgent’ need to understand immunotherapy de-escalation in NSCLC
However, the research to date does not provide a clear picture of which patients will achieve this “exceptional and durable response” and at which point patients can safely reduce or withdraw from treatment, according to Yasushi Goto, MD, PhD, a staff doctor in the Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo.
Dr. Goto presented the latest evidence and explored the current unknowns surrounding immunotherapy de-escalation in NSCLC in a session this week at the virtual World Conference on Lung Cancer.
In addition to a toxicity and quality-of-life benefit for patients, immunotherapy de-escalation could have a significant impact on the costs of care, Dr. Goto stressed. The rising cost of new cancer treatments represents a “crisis” in terms of the affordability of health care, he said, and reducing these costs represents an “urgent global issue.”
Evidence on discontinuing treatment
Dr. Goto kicked off the session by emphasizing how drastically immunotherapy has enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC and other cancers.
This success has brought a pressing clinical question to the forefront: How long should we treat patients with immunotherapy?
The question arose over 10 years ago when ipilimumab (Yervoy) was granted FDA approval for patients with metastatic melanoma, but only for a total of four doses because of the drug’s toxicity.
“However, some patients had very lasting efficacy with the drug, even after discontinuation,” Dr. Goto said, which raised the exciting prospect that patients could achieve a functional cure with immunotherapy.
Evidence highlighting this lasting effect among patients with NSCLC soon emerged as well. A 2015 study, for instance, indicated that, despite toxicities, 50% of patients receiving nivolumab (Opdivo) continued to have a treatment effect more than 9 months after their last dose.
A 2021 analysis of patients receiving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) found that 48% of patients were disease-free after 5 years, despite having discontinued treatment after 2 years.
These investigators also found that toxicities accumulated over time – new grade greater than or equal to three toxicities occurred in 10% of patients every 6 months – which makes it particularly important to consider limiting the duration of therapy, Dr. Goto noted.
Only one randomized study to date – the CheckMate 153 trial – has explicitly explored outcomes associated with discontinuing immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC. In this study, patients still receiving nivolumab after 1 year were randomized to continue or stop therapy. Both median progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy versus those who stopped at 1 year.
However, Dr. Goto noted that limitations in the study design, including the fact that many patients were censored at an early stage, made the results “nonconfirmatory” and he would like to see more data.
The role of re-treatment
Finding the optimal time to discontinue treatment is critical but even if patients stop treatment before they achieve long-lasting benefits, they can still be retreated successfully.
Two recent studies examined the potential benefits of re-treatment. In the 2021 KEYNOTE-010 analysis, 21 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab, at a response rate of 53% and a disease control rate of 81%.
In another recent study, investigators found that among 78 patients with melanoma who had discontinued either nivolumab or pembrolizumab and were re-treated after disease progression, 15% (5 of 34) receiving a single anti-PD-1 agent responded to retreatment and 25% (11 of 44) escalated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab exhibited a response.
Dr. Goto noted that there are also ongoing randomized studies examining the optimal duration of immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. One that he is involved in, the SAVE study, is enrolling patients with advanced NSCLC who have responded to anti-PD-1 agents for over a year and will compare overall survival in those who stop therapy versus those who continue. In addition, given the “growing importance” of biomarkers as a prediction tool, Dr. Goto plans to integrate circulating tumor DNA testing to help identify patients more likely to benefit from therapy discontinuation.
If successful, such approaches could “disruptively decrease prescribing costs,” by lowering doses or dose frequency, shortening the treatment duration, or by substituting therapies with fewer adverse effects, Dr. Goto said.
Discussing de-escalation in practice
During the discussion period after his talk, session co-chair Loretta Erhunmwunsee, MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California, asked Dr. Goto what his current practice is in regard to de-escalation.
He replied that, in Japan, physicians are allowed to continue immunotherapy beyond 2 years, but “many patients stop their immune checkpoint inhibitor due to toxicity,” even if it is minor.
Exploring evidence surrounding the optimal duration of therapy, session cochair Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, pointed to collaborative studies in colon cancer that looked at chemotherapy duration, for example looking at 3 versus 6 months of treatment.
Dr. Gyawali wondered whether the same could be achieved in lung cancer to test the non-inferiority of shorter duration of immunotherapy versus continuing treatment until disease progression.
Dr. Goto noted that the biggest difference in the current context of NSCLC is the toxicity incurred by both the adjuvant chemotherapy and the immunotherapy, making the overall benefit to the patient “very difficult to show.” Consequently, patients may not be willing to join a randomized trial in which they could experience additional toxicity for uncertain benefit.
City of Hope oncologist H. Jack West, MD, who presented at the session, said he would “love to see more trials looking at de-escalation and seeing whether we do just as well on efficacy with lower toxicity and lower costs.”
Instead, “we are seeing reports of the fourth entrant into the field that just recapitulates things we already know,” which is “terribly disappointing.”
“I really wish we could vote with our feet more and not participate in trials that are completely redundant compared to what we’ve had for years already,” Dr. West said.
No funding for this study was declared. Dr. Goto disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Illumina, Kyorin, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi Pharma, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. West disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, EQRx, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Mirati, and Regeneron and is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, the research to date does not provide a clear picture of which patients will achieve this “exceptional and durable response” and at which point patients can safely reduce or withdraw from treatment, according to Yasushi Goto, MD, PhD, a staff doctor in the Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo.
Dr. Goto presented the latest evidence and explored the current unknowns surrounding immunotherapy de-escalation in NSCLC in a session this week at the virtual World Conference on Lung Cancer.
In addition to a toxicity and quality-of-life benefit for patients, immunotherapy de-escalation could have a significant impact on the costs of care, Dr. Goto stressed. The rising cost of new cancer treatments represents a “crisis” in terms of the affordability of health care, he said, and reducing these costs represents an “urgent global issue.”
Evidence on discontinuing treatment
Dr. Goto kicked off the session by emphasizing how drastically immunotherapy has enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC and other cancers.
This success has brought a pressing clinical question to the forefront: How long should we treat patients with immunotherapy?
The question arose over 10 years ago when ipilimumab (Yervoy) was granted FDA approval for patients with metastatic melanoma, but only for a total of four doses because of the drug’s toxicity.
“However, some patients had very lasting efficacy with the drug, even after discontinuation,” Dr. Goto said, which raised the exciting prospect that patients could achieve a functional cure with immunotherapy.
Evidence highlighting this lasting effect among patients with NSCLC soon emerged as well. A 2015 study, for instance, indicated that, despite toxicities, 50% of patients receiving nivolumab (Opdivo) continued to have a treatment effect more than 9 months after their last dose.
A 2021 analysis of patients receiving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) found that 48% of patients were disease-free after 5 years, despite having discontinued treatment after 2 years.
These investigators also found that toxicities accumulated over time – new grade greater than or equal to three toxicities occurred in 10% of patients every 6 months – which makes it particularly important to consider limiting the duration of therapy, Dr. Goto noted.
Only one randomized study to date – the CheckMate 153 trial – has explicitly explored outcomes associated with discontinuing immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC. In this study, patients still receiving nivolumab after 1 year were randomized to continue or stop therapy. Both median progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy versus those who stopped at 1 year.
However, Dr. Goto noted that limitations in the study design, including the fact that many patients were censored at an early stage, made the results “nonconfirmatory” and he would like to see more data.
The role of re-treatment
Finding the optimal time to discontinue treatment is critical but even if patients stop treatment before they achieve long-lasting benefits, they can still be retreated successfully.
Two recent studies examined the potential benefits of re-treatment. In the 2021 KEYNOTE-010 analysis, 21 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab, at a response rate of 53% and a disease control rate of 81%.
In another recent study, investigators found that among 78 patients with melanoma who had discontinued either nivolumab or pembrolizumab and were re-treated after disease progression, 15% (5 of 34) receiving a single anti-PD-1 agent responded to retreatment and 25% (11 of 44) escalated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab exhibited a response.
Dr. Goto noted that there are also ongoing randomized studies examining the optimal duration of immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. One that he is involved in, the SAVE study, is enrolling patients with advanced NSCLC who have responded to anti-PD-1 agents for over a year and will compare overall survival in those who stop therapy versus those who continue. In addition, given the “growing importance” of biomarkers as a prediction tool, Dr. Goto plans to integrate circulating tumor DNA testing to help identify patients more likely to benefit from therapy discontinuation.
If successful, such approaches could “disruptively decrease prescribing costs,” by lowering doses or dose frequency, shortening the treatment duration, or by substituting therapies with fewer adverse effects, Dr. Goto said.
Discussing de-escalation in practice
During the discussion period after his talk, session co-chair Loretta Erhunmwunsee, MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California, asked Dr. Goto what his current practice is in regard to de-escalation.
He replied that, in Japan, physicians are allowed to continue immunotherapy beyond 2 years, but “many patients stop their immune checkpoint inhibitor due to toxicity,” even if it is minor.
Exploring evidence surrounding the optimal duration of therapy, session cochair Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, pointed to collaborative studies in colon cancer that looked at chemotherapy duration, for example looking at 3 versus 6 months of treatment.
Dr. Gyawali wondered whether the same could be achieved in lung cancer to test the non-inferiority of shorter duration of immunotherapy versus continuing treatment until disease progression.
Dr. Goto noted that the biggest difference in the current context of NSCLC is the toxicity incurred by both the adjuvant chemotherapy and the immunotherapy, making the overall benefit to the patient “very difficult to show.” Consequently, patients may not be willing to join a randomized trial in which they could experience additional toxicity for uncertain benefit.
City of Hope oncologist H. Jack West, MD, who presented at the session, said he would “love to see more trials looking at de-escalation and seeing whether we do just as well on efficacy with lower toxicity and lower costs.”
Instead, “we are seeing reports of the fourth entrant into the field that just recapitulates things we already know,” which is “terribly disappointing.”
“I really wish we could vote with our feet more and not participate in trials that are completely redundant compared to what we’ve had for years already,” Dr. West said.
No funding for this study was declared. Dr. Goto disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Illumina, Kyorin, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi Pharma, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. West disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, EQRx, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Mirati, and Regeneron and is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
However, the research to date does not provide a clear picture of which patients will achieve this “exceptional and durable response” and at which point patients can safely reduce or withdraw from treatment, according to Yasushi Goto, MD, PhD, a staff doctor in the Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo.
Dr. Goto presented the latest evidence and explored the current unknowns surrounding immunotherapy de-escalation in NSCLC in a session this week at the virtual World Conference on Lung Cancer.
In addition to a toxicity and quality-of-life benefit for patients, immunotherapy de-escalation could have a significant impact on the costs of care, Dr. Goto stressed. The rising cost of new cancer treatments represents a “crisis” in terms of the affordability of health care, he said, and reducing these costs represents an “urgent global issue.”
Evidence on discontinuing treatment
Dr. Goto kicked off the session by emphasizing how drastically immunotherapy has enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC and other cancers.
This success has brought a pressing clinical question to the forefront: How long should we treat patients with immunotherapy?
The question arose over 10 years ago when ipilimumab (Yervoy) was granted FDA approval for patients with metastatic melanoma, but only for a total of four doses because of the drug’s toxicity.
“However, some patients had very lasting efficacy with the drug, even after discontinuation,” Dr. Goto said, which raised the exciting prospect that patients could achieve a functional cure with immunotherapy.
Evidence highlighting this lasting effect among patients with NSCLC soon emerged as well. A 2015 study, for instance, indicated that, despite toxicities, 50% of patients receiving nivolumab (Opdivo) continued to have a treatment effect more than 9 months after their last dose.
A 2021 analysis of patients receiving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) found that 48% of patients were disease-free after 5 years, despite having discontinued treatment after 2 years.
These investigators also found that toxicities accumulated over time – new grade greater than or equal to three toxicities occurred in 10% of patients every 6 months – which makes it particularly important to consider limiting the duration of therapy, Dr. Goto noted.
Only one randomized study to date – the CheckMate 153 trial – has explicitly explored outcomes associated with discontinuing immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC. In this study, patients still receiving nivolumab after 1 year were randomized to continue or stop therapy. Both median progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy versus those who stopped at 1 year.
However, Dr. Goto noted that limitations in the study design, including the fact that many patients were censored at an early stage, made the results “nonconfirmatory” and he would like to see more data.
The role of re-treatment
Finding the optimal time to discontinue treatment is critical but even if patients stop treatment before they achieve long-lasting benefits, they can still be retreated successfully.
Two recent studies examined the potential benefits of re-treatment. In the 2021 KEYNOTE-010 analysis, 21 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab, at a response rate of 53% and a disease control rate of 81%.
In another recent study, investigators found that among 78 patients with melanoma who had discontinued either nivolumab or pembrolizumab and were re-treated after disease progression, 15% (5 of 34) receiving a single anti-PD-1 agent responded to retreatment and 25% (11 of 44) escalated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab exhibited a response.
Dr. Goto noted that there are also ongoing randomized studies examining the optimal duration of immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. One that he is involved in, the SAVE study, is enrolling patients with advanced NSCLC who have responded to anti-PD-1 agents for over a year and will compare overall survival in those who stop therapy versus those who continue. In addition, given the “growing importance” of biomarkers as a prediction tool, Dr. Goto plans to integrate circulating tumor DNA testing to help identify patients more likely to benefit from therapy discontinuation.
If successful, such approaches could “disruptively decrease prescribing costs,” by lowering doses or dose frequency, shortening the treatment duration, or by substituting therapies with fewer adverse effects, Dr. Goto said.
Discussing de-escalation in practice
During the discussion period after his talk, session co-chair Loretta Erhunmwunsee, MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California, asked Dr. Goto what his current practice is in regard to de-escalation.
He replied that, in Japan, physicians are allowed to continue immunotherapy beyond 2 years, but “many patients stop their immune checkpoint inhibitor due to toxicity,” even if it is minor.
Exploring evidence surrounding the optimal duration of therapy, session cochair Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, pointed to collaborative studies in colon cancer that looked at chemotherapy duration, for example looking at 3 versus 6 months of treatment.
Dr. Gyawali wondered whether the same could be achieved in lung cancer to test the non-inferiority of shorter duration of immunotherapy versus continuing treatment until disease progression.
Dr. Goto noted that the biggest difference in the current context of NSCLC is the toxicity incurred by both the adjuvant chemotherapy and the immunotherapy, making the overall benefit to the patient “very difficult to show.” Consequently, patients may not be willing to join a randomized trial in which they could experience additional toxicity for uncertain benefit.
City of Hope oncologist H. Jack West, MD, who presented at the session, said he would “love to see more trials looking at de-escalation and seeing whether we do just as well on efficacy with lower toxicity and lower costs.”
Instead, “we are seeing reports of the fourth entrant into the field that just recapitulates things we already know,” which is “terribly disappointing.”
“I really wish we could vote with our feet more and not participate in trials that are completely redundant compared to what we’ve had for years already,” Dr. West said.
No funding for this study was declared. Dr. Goto disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Illumina, Kyorin, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi Pharma, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. West disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, EQRx, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Mirati, and Regeneron and is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tackling grief, loss in patients with advanced lung cancer
Patients with life-limiting advanced lung cancer often experience intense grief and loss.
Palliative care aims “to anticipate, prevent, and reduce suffering, promote adaptive coping, and support the best possible quality of life ... regardless of the stage of the disease or the need for other therapies,” commented Andreas Charalambous, RN, PhD, assistant professor (acting) of oncology and palliative care at the Cyprus University of Technology in Limassol, Cyprus.
He was speaking at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, where he chaired a special session entitled, “Grief and Loss in Palliative Care.”
Research shows that the use of palliative care is associated with improved quality of life and lower costs of care for patients with cancer. But a 2015 Palliative Care Survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network found that although the majority of leading U.S. cancer centers have inpatient palliative care services, most reported insufficient capacity to meet the demand, and that home-based palliative care services and inpatient units were much less common.
Dr. Charalambous emphasized the importance of enhancing the use and quality of palliative care services for patients with advanced lung cancer.
During the session, experts discussed an array of strategies geared towards relieving physical symptoms as well as psychological and spiritual stressors.
Physical activity: Establishing what’s possible
Grief and loss are “natural and normal” reactions to advanced cancer, commented Celia Marston, MPallCare, clinical lead for occupational therapy at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
Patients experience feelings of loss around their independence, relationships, physical and cognitive functioning, which in turn impacts their sense of identity, daily routines, and plans for the future.
According to Ms. Marston, the rapid physical decline patients experience in the last 3 months of life is particularly “distressing,” which is why helping patients continue to perform everyday tasks is so critical.
In clinical practice, this means providing patients palliative rehabilitation focused on maintaining at least a degree of their normal physical activity, which allows them “to adjust and contend with that decline,” Ms. Marston said. It also requires understanding what is important to patients and supporting those requests.
According to Ms. Marston, optimizing patient function can help maintain or slow that rate of physical decline, or sometimes improve it. But even partial activity can be “equally if not more important” than full participation in an activity. Patients “want to be active, they want to test what they can and can’t do” and establish what is possible, she said.
Nonpharmacological approaches to symptom control
Addressing strategies to relieve physical symptoms in patients with lung cancer, Alex Molassiotis, RN, PhD, chair professor of nursing at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, explored the role nonpharmacological interventions can play.
Dr. Molassiotis highlighted the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for the Management of Dyspnea in Advanced Cancer, which discuss a range of nonpharmacological strategies to manage respiratory distress, in particular. These include supplemental oxygen and noninvasive ventilation as well as breathing techniques, posture, relaxation, meditation, physical and music therapy, and acupressure or reflexology.
In a 2015 randomized controlled feasibility trial, Dr. Molassiotis explored the effectiveness of one such strategy – inspiratory muscle training – in patients with lung cancer and reported improvements in the respiratory symptom cluster of breathlessness, cough, and fatigue. A 2020 trial of breathing retraining and psychosocial support for managing dyspnea in patients with lung cancer or mesothelioma also showed the intervention improved average dyspnea, control over dyspnea, and anxiety.
However, Dr. Molassiotis cautioned, many other nonpharmacological interventions have only “limited” evidence of effectiveness, and a “stronger evidence base” is required.
Physicians should nevertheless talk to patients about their respiratory symptoms and discuss the available options, taking into account the “major impact” these symptoms have on their quality of life.
Integrating psychological strategies
More than 40% of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer experience moderate to severe death anxiety, and about one in four patients with any stage of lung cancer experience significant depression and demoralization, research shows.
During the session, Gary Rodin, MD, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, stressed the “need to intervene” and outlined approaches relevant to different stages of the disease journey.
At the onset, he said, Emotion and Symptom-Focused Engagement (EASE) can help relieve patients’ physical symptoms and traumatic stress. Those with more advanced disease can receive Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy, or Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), which Dr. Rodin and his colleague Sarah Hales, MD, PhD, developed. And patients at the end of life may benefit from Dignity Therapy, a short form of psychotherapy focused on helping patients find comfort and meaning in their final days.
Dr. Rodin focused on the role of CALM for those with advanced disease. CALM encompasses three to six sessions of a semi-structured intervention given over several months. The intervention focuses on four domains: 1. Symptom management and communication with healthcare providers; 2. Changes in oneself and relationships with others; 3. Spirituality, or finding a sense of meaning and purpose; and 4. Approaches to sustain hope and face mortality.
Dr. Rodin led a 2018 randomized trial comparing CALM with usual care, which showed the intervention was associated with significant reductions in depression symptoms and death anxiety in patients with advanced cancer at three and six months, as well as better patient communication and preparedness for the end of life. Patients reported that the intervention gave them “complete freedom” to communicate about themselves, their condition, and their life.
Evidence-based psychological interventions “should be offered as standard of care” to patients with lung cancer, Dr. Rodin said.
Enhancing patient-doctor communication
Having conversations early on about the goals of cancer care is particularly critical, according to Rachelle E. Bernacki, MD, director of quality initiatives, psychosocial oncology, and palliative care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
These conversations between physicians, patients, and family members give patients and loved ones time to make informed decisions, improve patients’ quality of care and satisfaction, and increase the likelihood of using hospice care, Dr. Bernacki explained.
But the reality is that these conversations don’t happen often enough. Less than one third of patients with end-stage diagnoses reported having an end-of-life discussion with their physician, and when the topic does arise, it is typically a few weeks before a patient passes away.
Moreover, these conversations “often fail to address key elements of quality discussions,” Dr. Bernacki commented.
Part of the problem is that many doctors lack the necessary training, face time constraints, or are uncertain about when or how to initiate these conversations.
Although challenging, patients want to have these discussions. Nine of 10 Americans believe doctors should talk about end-of-life issues with their patients, and 75% of older patients want to know their prognosis so they can prepare for the future, make informed medical decisions, and optimize the time they have left.
Dr. Bernacki highlighted a framework that can help clinicians have productive end-of-life conversations with patients. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, developed by Ariadne Labs and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, outlines key steps, which include scheduling the conversation, delivering a prognosis, and exploring what matters to the patient. The guide also explores how to communicate effectively with patients, such as asking permission and clarifying questions as well as engaging in active listening.
Above all, Dr. Bernacki stressed that physicians should “listen more than talk” and avoid providing premature assurance when addressing the prognosis. “Many fears will arise that cannot be fixed, but talking about them makes them more bearable for the patient,” she said.
Physicians experience grief, too
Patients with advanced lung cancer are not the only ones who face loss and distress. More than half of physicians treating terminally ill patients can experience burnout, according to Sonia Oyola, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine.
In her presentation, Dr. Oyola highlighted strategies physicians can use to manage their grief.
The first step is simply acknowledging feelings of loss. But every physician will have a “unique way of grieving and caring for themselves,” she said.
In general, the literature supports several approaches for managing grief: engaging in death talks and self-attunement or personal awareness training as well as providing end-of-life education in medical schools.
On the personal awareness front, Dr. Oyola highlighted a narrative medicine exercise where physicians write about the patient and reflect on what moved or touched them, what surprised them, and what inspired them.
Pursuing this kind of exercise allows physicians to reflect on their experiences in a way “we often do not have the opportunity to do” and could prevent some of the “devastating consequences in our practices, such as burnout,” Dr. Oyola said.
No funding declared. Dr. Molassiotis has reported a relationship with Helsinn. No other relevant financial relationships declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with life-limiting advanced lung cancer often experience intense grief and loss.
Palliative care aims “to anticipate, prevent, and reduce suffering, promote adaptive coping, and support the best possible quality of life ... regardless of the stage of the disease or the need for other therapies,” commented Andreas Charalambous, RN, PhD, assistant professor (acting) of oncology and palliative care at the Cyprus University of Technology in Limassol, Cyprus.
He was speaking at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, where he chaired a special session entitled, “Grief and Loss in Palliative Care.”
Research shows that the use of palliative care is associated with improved quality of life and lower costs of care for patients with cancer. But a 2015 Palliative Care Survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network found that although the majority of leading U.S. cancer centers have inpatient palliative care services, most reported insufficient capacity to meet the demand, and that home-based palliative care services and inpatient units were much less common.
Dr. Charalambous emphasized the importance of enhancing the use and quality of palliative care services for patients with advanced lung cancer.
During the session, experts discussed an array of strategies geared towards relieving physical symptoms as well as psychological and spiritual stressors.
Physical activity: Establishing what’s possible
Grief and loss are “natural and normal” reactions to advanced cancer, commented Celia Marston, MPallCare, clinical lead for occupational therapy at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
Patients experience feelings of loss around their independence, relationships, physical and cognitive functioning, which in turn impacts their sense of identity, daily routines, and plans for the future.
According to Ms. Marston, the rapid physical decline patients experience in the last 3 months of life is particularly “distressing,” which is why helping patients continue to perform everyday tasks is so critical.
In clinical practice, this means providing patients palliative rehabilitation focused on maintaining at least a degree of their normal physical activity, which allows them “to adjust and contend with that decline,” Ms. Marston said. It also requires understanding what is important to patients and supporting those requests.
According to Ms. Marston, optimizing patient function can help maintain or slow that rate of physical decline, or sometimes improve it. But even partial activity can be “equally if not more important” than full participation in an activity. Patients “want to be active, they want to test what they can and can’t do” and establish what is possible, she said.
Nonpharmacological approaches to symptom control
Addressing strategies to relieve physical symptoms in patients with lung cancer, Alex Molassiotis, RN, PhD, chair professor of nursing at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, explored the role nonpharmacological interventions can play.
Dr. Molassiotis highlighted the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for the Management of Dyspnea in Advanced Cancer, which discuss a range of nonpharmacological strategies to manage respiratory distress, in particular. These include supplemental oxygen and noninvasive ventilation as well as breathing techniques, posture, relaxation, meditation, physical and music therapy, and acupressure or reflexology.
In a 2015 randomized controlled feasibility trial, Dr. Molassiotis explored the effectiveness of one such strategy – inspiratory muscle training – in patients with lung cancer and reported improvements in the respiratory symptom cluster of breathlessness, cough, and fatigue. A 2020 trial of breathing retraining and psychosocial support for managing dyspnea in patients with lung cancer or mesothelioma also showed the intervention improved average dyspnea, control over dyspnea, and anxiety.
However, Dr. Molassiotis cautioned, many other nonpharmacological interventions have only “limited” evidence of effectiveness, and a “stronger evidence base” is required.
Physicians should nevertheless talk to patients about their respiratory symptoms and discuss the available options, taking into account the “major impact” these symptoms have on their quality of life.
Integrating psychological strategies
More than 40% of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer experience moderate to severe death anxiety, and about one in four patients with any stage of lung cancer experience significant depression and demoralization, research shows.
During the session, Gary Rodin, MD, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, stressed the “need to intervene” and outlined approaches relevant to different stages of the disease journey.
At the onset, he said, Emotion and Symptom-Focused Engagement (EASE) can help relieve patients’ physical symptoms and traumatic stress. Those with more advanced disease can receive Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy, or Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), which Dr. Rodin and his colleague Sarah Hales, MD, PhD, developed. And patients at the end of life may benefit from Dignity Therapy, a short form of psychotherapy focused on helping patients find comfort and meaning in their final days.
Dr. Rodin focused on the role of CALM for those with advanced disease. CALM encompasses three to six sessions of a semi-structured intervention given over several months. The intervention focuses on four domains: 1. Symptom management and communication with healthcare providers; 2. Changes in oneself and relationships with others; 3. Spirituality, or finding a sense of meaning and purpose; and 4. Approaches to sustain hope and face mortality.
Dr. Rodin led a 2018 randomized trial comparing CALM with usual care, which showed the intervention was associated with significant reductions in depression symptoms and death anxiety in patients with advanced cancer at three and six months, as well as better patient communication and preparedness for the end of life. Patients reported that the intervention gave them “complete freedom” to communicate about themselves, their condition, and their life.
Evidence-based psychological interventions “should be offered as standard of care” to patients with lung cancer, Dr. Rodin said.
Enhancing patient-doctor communication
Having conversations early on about the goals of cancer care is particularly critical, according to Rachelle E. Bernacki, MD, director of quality initiatives, psychosocial oncology, and palliative care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
These conversations between physicians, patients, and family members give patients and loved ones time to make informed decisions, improve patients’ quality of care and satisfaction, and increase the likelihood of using hospice care, Dr. Bernacki explained.
But the reality is that these conversations don’t happen often enough. Less than one third of patients with end-stage diagnoses reported having an end-of-life discussion with their physician, and when the topic does arise, it is typically a few weeks before a patient passes away.
Moreover, these conversations “often fail to address key elements of quality discussions,” Dr. Bernacki commented.
Part of the problem is that many doctors lack the necessary training, face time constraints, or are uncertain about when or how to initiate these conversations.
Although challenging, patients want to have these discussions. Nine of 10 Americans believe doctors should talk about end-of-life issues with their patients, and 75% of older patients want to know their prognosis so they can prepare for the future, make informed medical decisions, and optimize the time they have left.
Dr. Bernacki highlighted a framework that can help clinicians have productive end-of-life conversations with patients. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, developed by Ariadne Labs and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, outlines key steps, which include scheduling the conversation, delivering a prognosis, and exploring what matters to the patient. The guide also explores how to communicate effectively with patients, such as asking permission and clarifying questions as well as engaging in active listening.
Above all, Dr. Bernacki stressed that physicians should “listen more than talk” and avoid providing premature assurance when addressing the prognosis. “Many fears will arise that cannot be fixed, but talking about them makes them more bearable for the patient,” she said.
Physicians experience grief, too
Patients with advanced lung cancer are not the only ones who face loss and distress. More than half of physicians treating terminally ill patients can experience burnout, according to Sonia Oyola, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine.
In her presentation, Dr. Oyola highlighted strategies physicians can use to manage their grief.
The first step is simply acknowledging feelings of loss. But every physician will have a “unique way of grieving and caring for themselves,” she said.
In general, the literature supports several approaches for managing grief: engaging in death talks and self-attunement or personal awareness training as well as providing end-of-life education in medical schools.
On the personal awareness front, Dr. Oyola highlighted a narrative medicine exercise where physicians write about the patient and reflect on what moved or touched them, what surprised them, and what inspired them.
Pursuing this kind of exercise allows physicians to reflect on their experiences in a way “we often do not have the opportunity to do” and could prevent some of the “devastating consequences in our practices, such as burnout,” Dr. Oyola said.
No funding declared. Dr. Molassiotis has reported a relationship with Helsinn. No other relevant financial relationships declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with life-limiting advanced lung cancer often experience intense grief and loss.
Palliative care aims “to anticipate, prevent, and reduce suffering, promote adaptive coping, and support the best possible quality of life ... regardless of the stage of the disease or the need for other therapies,” commented Andreas Charalambous, RN, PhD, assistant professor (acting) of oncology and palliative care at the Cyprus University of Technology in Limassol, Cyprus.
He was speaking at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, where he chaired a special session entitled, “Grief and Loss in Palliative Care.”
Research shows that the use of palliative care is associated with improved quality of life and lower costs of care for patients with cancer. But a 2015 Palliative Care Survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network found that although the majority of leading U.S. cancer centers have inpatient palliative care services, most reported insufficient capacity to meet the demand, and that home-based palliative care services and inpatient units were much less common.
Dr. Charalambous emphasized the importance of enhancing the use and quality of palliative care services for patients with advanced lung cancer.
During the session, experts discussed an array of strategies geared towards relieving physical symptoms as well as psychological and spiritual stressors.
Physical activity: Establishing what’s possible
Grief and loss are “natural and normal” reactions to advanced cancer, commented Celia Marston, MPallCare, clinical lead for occupational therapy at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
Patients experience feelings of loss around their independence, relationships, physical and cognitive functioning, which in turn impacts their sense of identity, daily routines, and plans for the future.
According to Ms. Marston, the rapid physical decline patients experience in the last 3 months of life is particularly “distressing,” which is why helping patients continue to perform everyday tasks is so critical.
In clinical practice, this means providing patients palliative rehabilitation focused on maintaining at least a degree of their normal physical activity, which allows them “to adjust and contend with that decline,” Ms. Marston said. It also requires understanding what is important to patients and supporting those requests.
According to Ms. Marston, optimizing patient function can help maintain or slow that rate of physical decline, or sometimes improve it. But even partial activity can be “equally if not more important” than full participation in an activity. Patients “want to be active, they want to test what they can and can’t do” and establish what is possible, she said.
Nonpharmacological approaches to symptom control
Addressing strategies to relieve physical symptoms in patients with lung cancer, Alex Molassiotis, RN, PhD, chair professor of nursing at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, explored the role nonpharmacological interventions can play.
Dr. Molassiotis highlighted the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for the Management of Dyspnea in Advanced Cancer, which discuss a range of nonpharmacological strategies to manage respiratory distress, in particular. These include supplemental oxygen and noninvasive ventilation as well as breathing techniques, posture, relaxation, meditation, physical and music therapy, and acupressure or reflexology.
In a 2015 randomized controlled feasibility trial, Dr. Molassiotis explored the effectiveness of one such strategy – inspiratory muscle training – in patients with lung cancer and reported improvements in the respiratory symptom cluster of breathlessness, cough, and fatigue. A 2020 trial of breathing retraining and psychosocial support for managing dyspnea in patients with lung cancer or mesothelioma also showed the intervention improved average dyspnea, control over dyspnea, and anxiety.
However, Dr. Molassiotis cautioned, many other nonpharmacological interventions have only “limited” evidence of effectiveness, and a “stronger evidence base” is required.
Physicians should nevertheless talk to patients about their respiratory symptoms and discuss the available options, taking into account the “major impact” these symptoms have on their quality of life.
Integrating psychological strategies
More than 40% of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer experience moderate to severe death anxiety, and about one in four patients with any stage of lung cancer experience significant depression and demoralization, research shows.
During the session, Gary Rodin, MD, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, stressed the “need to intervene” and outlined approaches relevant to different stages of the disease journey.
At the onset, he said, Emotion and Symptom-Focused Engagement (EASE) can help relieve patients’ physical symptoms and traumatic stress. Those with more advanced disease can receive Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy, or Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), which Dr. Rodin and his colleague Sarah Hales, MD, PhD, developed. And patients at the end of life may benefit from Dignity Therapy, a short form of psychotherapy focused on helping patients find comfort and meaning in their final days.
Dr. Rodin focused on the role of CALM for those with advanced disease. CALM encompasses three to six sessions of a semi-structured intervention given over several months. The intervention focuses on four domains: 1. Symptom management and communication with healthcare providers; 2. Changes in oneself and relationships with others; 3. Spirituality, or finding a sense of meaning and purpose; and 4. Approaches to sustain hope and face mortality.
Dr. Rodin led a 2018 randomized trial comparing CALM with usual care, which showed the intervention was associated with significant reductions in depression symptoms and death anxiety in patients with advanced cancer at three and six months, as well as better patient communication and preparedness for the end of life. Patients reported that the intervention gave them “complete freedom” to communicate about themselves, their condition, and their life.
Evidence-based psychological interventions “should be offered as standard of care” to patients with lung cancer, Dr. Rodin said.
Enhancing patient-doctor communication
Having conversations early on about the goals of cancer care is particularly critical, according to Rachelle E. Bernacki, MD, director of quality initiatives, psychosocial oncology, and palliative care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
These conversations between physicians, patients, and family members give patients and loved ones time to make informed decisions, improve patients’ quality of care and satisfaction, and increase the likelihood of using hospice care, Dr. Bernacki explained.
But the reality is that these conversations don’t happen often enough. Less than one third of patients with end-stage diagnoses reported having an end-of-life discussion with their physician, and when the topic does arise, it is typically a few weeks before a patient passes away.
Moreover, these conversations “often fail to address key elements of quality discussions,” Dr. Bernacki commented.
Part of the problem is that many doctors lack the necessary training, face time constraints, or are uncertain about when or how to initiate these conversations.
Although challenging, patients want to have these discussions. Nine of 10 Americans believe doctors should talk about end-of-life issues with their patients, and 75% of older patients want to know their prognosis so they can prepare for the future, make informed medical decisions, and optimize the time they have left.
Dr. Bernacki highlighted a framework that can help clinicians have productive end-of-life conversations with patients. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, developed by Ariadne Labs and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, outlines key steps, which include scheduling the conversation, delivering a prognosis, and exploring what matters to the patient. The guide also explores how to communicate effectively with patients, such as asking permission and clarifying questions as well as engaging in active listening.
Above all, Dr. Bernacki stressed that physicians should “listen more than talk” and avoid providing premature assurance when addressing the prognosis. “Many fears will arise that cannot be fixed, but talking about them makes them more bearable for the patient,” she said.
Physicians experience grief, too
Patients with advanced lung cancer are not the only ones who face loss and distress. More than half of physicians treating terminally ill patients can experience burnout, according to Sonia Oyola, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine.
In her presentation, Dr. Oyola highlighted strategies physicians can use to manage their grief.
The first step is simply acknowledging feelings of loss. But every physician will have a “unique way of grieving and caring for themselves,” she said.
In general, the literature supports several approaches for managing grief: engaging in death talks and self-attunement or personal awareness training as well as providing end-of-life education in medical schools.
On the personal awareness front, Dr. Oyola highlighted a narrative medicine exercise where physicians write about the patient and reflect on what moved or touched them, what surprised them, and what inspired them.
Pursuing this kind of exercise allows physicians to reflect on their experiences in a way “we often do not have the opportunity to do” and could prevent some of the “devastating consequences in our practices, such as burnout,” Dr. Oyola said.
No funding declared. Dr. Molassiotis has reported a relationship with Helsinn. No other relevant financial relationships declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
POSEIDON: Two ICIs plus chemo up survival in mNSCLC
The study involved over 1,000 patients with stage IV NSCLC. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either two ICIs (tremelimumab and durvalumab [Imfinzi]) plus chemotherapy, or one immunotherapy (durvalumab) plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.
Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved PFS by 26% but did not significantly improve OS, the researchers reported. However, adding both tremelimumab and durvalumab significantly increased both PFS (by 28%) and OS (by 23%). Median OS was 14.0 months versus 11.7 months for chemotherapy.
The results were presented on Sept. 9 at a presidential symposium of the World Conference on Lung Cancer 2021.
The two immunotherapies act at different immune checkpoints – tremelimumab acts at CTLA-4, and durvalumab acts at programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1). Both drugs are from AstraZeneca, which sponsored the POSEIDON trial.
With no new safety signals identified, the triple therapy combination “represents a potential new frontline treatment option for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer,” said lead researcher Melissa L. Johnson, MD, from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn.
Reacting to the new results in a discussion of the paper, Julie R. Brahmer, MD, from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, with so many first-line treatment choices now available for advanced NSCLC, she feels like “a kid in the candy store.”
POSEIDON may give her “another choice,” but she pointed out that there are some aspects of the study to consider.
The study required patients to undergo four cycles of chemotherapy along with immunotherapy, “which certainly is standard in many of our practices.”
However, only two cycles of chemotherapy were given in the CheckMate 9LA trial, in which nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were added to chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IV NSCLC. This combination of immunotherapies, which block CTLA-4 and PD-1, is similar to the combination that was studied in the current trial, and it is already approved for use in some patients with lung cancer.
“Also key to point out,” said Dr. Brahmer, is that, in the POSEIDON trial, “there was a trend toward more poor prognostic factors in the chemotherapy arm, where these patients had more liver or central nervous system metastases.”
Despite these differences, the survival outcomes were similar in the two trials, and in both trials, the tails of the curves indicate that “we need to see long-term data” to determine whether the benefit is ongoing.
Which patients for which combos?
Considering all the data from key trials in advanced NSCLC, Dr. Brahmer said that she believes that, for patients with high PD-L1 expression, treatment with a single immunotherapy directed against PD-1 or PD-L1 “is appropriate” and that she didn’t see that adding a CTLA-4 inhibitor to the PD-L1 inhibitor and chemotherapy would give any advantage.
“But for PD-L1–negative disease, I do think CTLA-4 antibodies seem to provide a benefit, specifically seen in the CheckMate studies,” particularly for patients with squamous disease, although she noted that in POSEIDON, histology and PD-L1 status have not been analyzed.
Dr. Brahmer concluded that, although the triple therapy improved survival outcomes in the current study, several key questions remain.
These include determining what CTLA-4 inhibition adds to PD-L1 blockade and asking whether the “slightly increased toxicity” is “worth the slightly increased long-term duration of response” and improved survival outcomes.
Furthermore, it needs to be determined “which populations truly need” the combined approach; “to get to this, we need to find the biomarker for CTLA-4 benefit,” Dr. Brahmer said.
She also noted “a practical question: Is there room in the clinic for another CTLA-4 antibody in addition to the nivolumab/ipilimumab combinations?”
This last point was appreciated on social media. Jill Feldman, a lung cancer patient and advocate, described it on Twitter as a “great question.”
She said that, for her, “options equal hope,” but that it is “critical” to give the “best treatment first. ... So as a patient, I would ask: How do I know/you know which treatment would be best for me?”
With “so many options in the first-line setting,” subsets of patients who may benefit from quadruplet therapy versus monotherapy need to be defined, commented Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia. He added that “PD-L1 may be one biomarker, but we need more.”
More details of the POSEIDON trial
In the POSEIDON trial, investigators had the choice of different chemotherapy regimens: platinum/gemcitabine for patients with squamous disease, platinum/pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous disease, and nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin for patients with disease of either histology, Dr. Johnson reported.
It is noteworthy that the majority of patients were from Eastern Europe and Asia, “and the proportion of squamous patients enrolled was higher than is typically seen in mixed histology lung cancer studies,” she added.
The patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression at a cutoff of 50%, disease stage, and tumor histology.
Overall, 1,013 patients were enrolled. The three treatment arms were relatively well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics.
Dr. Johnson noted that there were “a few minor imbalances” in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab arm, with “fewer females, fewer Asians, and fewer never-smokers relative to the other two arms.”
The primary endpoint analysis after a median follow-up of 10.3 months demonstrated that PFS was significantly improved with durvalumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone, at a median of 5.5 months versus 4.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .00093).
Although OS improved numerically with the addition of durvalumab to chemotherapy, it did not reach significance (13.3 months vs. 11.7 months with chemotherapy alone; HR, 0.86; P = .07581).
The positive PFS benefit with durvalumab plus chemotherapy triggered a secondary endpoint analysis, which showed that adding tremelimumab to durvalumab plus chemotherapy improved both survival outcomes.
Median PFS with the triple combination therapy was 6.2 months, significantly longer than the 4.8 months seen with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.72; P = .00031).
At 12 months, 26.6% of patients who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy had not experienced disease progression, compared with 13.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
OS was also significantly improved, at 14.0 months among patients in the triple therapy arm versus 11.7 in the chemotherapy-alone arm (HR, 0.77; P = .00304).
The results also showed that at 24 months, 32.9% of triple therapy patients were still alive versus 22.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Analysis indicated that “most subgroups favored the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy.” There was a “trend toward improved survival for all patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Johnson said.
This was seen “in particular for the nonsquamous patients” and for those with tumor PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, he added.
It is notable that for a large proportion of combination-therapy patients, response had continued at 12 months. This was the case for 38.9% of those who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy and for 49.7% of those given triple therapy versus 21.4% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
As was seen across the whole cohort, among patients with nonsquamous disease, PFS and OS improved with the addition of immunotherapy. Of those patients with nonsquamous disease, 95.5% received pemetrexed plus platinum chemotherapy.
However, among patients with squamous tumors, of whom 88.3% received gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy, PFS and OS were “poor ... across all treatment arms,” Dr. Johnson reported, “with little separation of the curves.”
She highlighted the fact that the proportion of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events, whether of any cause or treatment related, was only slightly higher in the two immunotherapy arms, indicating that “most events were driven by the chemotherapy.”
The rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events leading to death were also similar across the three treatment arms, albeit they were slightly higher with the addition of immunotherapy.
Dr. Johnson also noted that, although there were more immune-mediated adverse events with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy, compared with durvalumab plus chemotherapy, the “majority were grade 1/2 and were manageable.”
The most common immune-mediated events in the two immunotherapy arms were hypothyroid and hepatic events, pneumonitis, dermatitis, and rash.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnson reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brahmer reported relationships with Amgen, AstratZeneca, BMA, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Revolution Medicine, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study involved over 1,000 patients with stage IV NSCLC. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either two ICIs (tremelimumab and durvalumab [Imfinzi]) plus chemotherapy, or one immunotherapy (durvalumab) plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.
Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved PFS by 26% but did not significantly improve OS, the researchers reported. However, adding both tremelimumab and durvalumab significantly increased both PFS (by 28%) and OS (by 23%). Median OS was 14.0 months versus 11.7 months for chemotherapy.
The results were presented on Sept. 9 at a presidential symposium of the World Conference on Lung Cancer 2021.
The two immunotherapies act at different immune checkpoints – tremelimumab acts at CTLA-4, and durvalumab acts at programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1). Both drugs are from AstraZeneca, which sponsored the POSEIDON trial.
With no new safety signals identified, the triple therapy combination “represents a potential new frontline treatment option for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer,” said lead researcher Melissa L. Johnson, MD, from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn.
Reacting to the new results in a discussion of the paper, Julie R. Brahmer, MD, from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, with so many first-line treatment choices now available for advanced NSCLC, she feels like “a kid in the candy store.”
POSEIDON may give her “another choice,” but she pointed out that there are some aspects of the study to consider.
The study required patients to undergo four cycles of chemotherapy along with immunotherapy, “which certainly is standard in many of our practices.”
However, only two cycles of chemotherapy were given in the CheckMate 9LA trial, in which nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were added to chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IV NSCLC. This combination of immunotherapies, which block CTLA-4 and PD-1, is similar to the combination that was studied in the current trial, and it is already approved for use in some patients with lung cancer.
“Also key to point out,” said Dr. Brahmer, is that, in the POSEIDON trial, “there was a trend toward more poor prognostic factors in the chemotherapy arm, where these patients had more liver or central nervous system metastases.”
Despite these differences, the survival outcomes were similar in the two trials, and in both trials, the tails of the curves indicate that “we need to see long-term data” to determine whether the benefit is ongoing.
Which patients for which combos?
Considering all the data from key trials in advanced NSCLC, Dr. Brahmer said that she believes that, for patients with high PD-L1 expression, treatment with a single immunotherapy directed against PD-1 or PD-L1 “is appropriate” and that she didn’t see that adding a CTLA-4 inhibitor to the PD-L1 inhibitor and chemotherapy would give any advantage.
“But for PD-L1–negative disease, I do think CTLA-4 antibodies seem to provide a benefit, specifically seen in the CheckMate studies,” particularly for patients with squamous disease, although she noted that in POSEIDON, histology and PD-L1 status have not been analyzed.
Dr. Brahmer concluded that, although the triple therapy improved survival outcomes in the current study, several key questions remain.
These include determining what CTLA-4 inhibition adds to PD-L1 blockade and asking whether the “slightly increased toxicity” is “worth the slightly increased long-term duration of response” and improved survival outcomes.
Furthermore, it needs to be determined “which populations truly need” the combined approach; “to get to this, we need to find the biomarker for CTLA-4 benefit,” Dr. Brahmer said.
She also noted “a practical question: Is there room in the clinic for another CTLA-4 antibody in addition to the nivolumab/ipilimumab combinations?”
This last point was appreciated on social media. Jill Feldman, a lung cancer patient and advocate, described it on Twitter as a “great question.”
She said that, for her, “options equal hope,” but that it is “critical” to give the “best treatment first. ... So as a patient, I would ask: How do I know/you know which treatment would be best for me?”
With “so many options in the first-line setting,” subsets of patients who may benefit from quadruplet therapy versus monotherapy need to be defined, commented Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia. He added that “PD-L1 may be one biomarker, but we need more.”
More details of the POSEIDON trial
In the POSEIDON trial, investigators had the choice of different chemotherapy regimens: platinum/gemcitabine for patients with squamous disease, platinum/pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous disease, and nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin for patients with disease of either histology, Dr. Johnson reported.
It is noteworthy that the majority of patients were from Eastern Europe and Asia, “and the proportion of squamous patients enrolled was higher than is typically seen in mixed histology lung cancer studies,” she added.
The patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression at a cutoff of 50%, disease stage, and tumor histology.
Overall, 1,013 patients were enrolled. The three treatment arms were relatively well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics.
Dr. Johnson noted that there were “a few minor imbalances” in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab arm, with “fewer females, fewer Asians, and fewer never-smokers relative to the other two arms.”
The primary endpoint analysis after a median follow-up of 10.3 months demonstrated that PFS was significantly improved with durvalumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone, at a median of 5.5 months versus 4.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .00093).
Although OS improved numerically with the addition of durvalumab to chemotherapy, it did not reach significance (13.3 months vs. 11.7 months with chemotherapy alone; HR, 0.86; P = .07581).
The positive PFS benefit with durvalumab plus chemotherapy triggered a secondary endpoint analysis, which showed that adding tremelimumab to durvalumab plus chemotherapy improved both survival outcomes.
Median PFS with the triple combination therapy was 6.2 months, significantly longer than the 4.8 months seen with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.72; P = .00031).
At 12 months, 26.6% of patients who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy had not experienced disease progression, compared with 13.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
OS was also significantly improved, at 14.0 months among patients in the triple therapy arm versus 11.7 in the chemotherapy-alone arm (HR, 0.77; P = .00304).
The results also showed that at 24 months, 32.9% of triple therapy patients were still alive versus 22.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Analysis indicated that “most subgroups favored the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy.” There was a “trend toward improved survival for all patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Johnson said.
This was seen “in particular for the nonsquamous patients” and for those with tumor PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, he added.
It is notable that for a large proportion of combination-therapy patients, response had continued at 12 months. This was the case for 38.9% of those who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy and for 49.7% of those given triple therapy versus 21.4% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
As was seen across the whole cohort, among patients with nonsquamous disease, PFS and OS improved with the addition of immunotherapy. Of those patients with nonsquamous disease, 95.5% received pemetrexed plus platinum chemotherapy.
However, among patients with squamous tumors, of whom 88.3% received gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy, PFS and OS were “poor ... across all treatment arms,” Dr. Johnson reported, “with little separation of the curves.”
She highlighted the fact that the proportion of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events, whether of any cause or treatment related, was only slightly higher in the two immunotherapy arms, indicating that “most events were driven by the chemotherapy.”
The rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events leading to death were also similar across the three treatment arms, albeit they were slightly higher with the addition of immunotherapy.
Dr. Johnson also noted that, although there were more immune-mediated adverse events with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy, compared with durvalumab plus chemotherapy, the “majority were grade 1/2 and were manageable.”
The most common immune-mediated events in the two immunotherapy arms were hypothyroid and hepatic events, pneumonitis, dermatitis, and rash.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnson reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brahmer reported relationships with Amgen, AstratZeneca, BMA, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Revolution Medicine, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study involved over 1,000 patients with stage IV NSCLC. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either two ICIs (tremelimumab and durvalumab [Imfinzi]) plus chemotherapy, or one immunotherapy (durvalumab) plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.
Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved PFS by 26% but did not significantly improve OS, the researchers reported. However, adding both tremelimumab and durvalumab significantly increased both PFS (by 28%) and OS (by 23%). Median OS was 14.0 months versus 11.7 months for chemotherapy.
The results were presented on Sept. 9 at a presidential symposium of the World Conference on Lung Cancer 2021.
The two immunotherapies act at different immune checkpoints – tremelimumab acts at CTLA-4, and durvalumab acts at programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1). Both drugs are from AstraZeneca, which sponsored the POSEIDON trial.
With no new safety signals identified, the triple therapy combination “represents a potential new frontline treatment option for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer,” said lead researcher Melissa L. Johnson, MD, from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn.
Reacting to the new results in a discussion of the paper, Julie R. Brahmer, MD, from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, with so many first-line treatment choices now available for advanced NSCLC, she feels like “a kid in the candy store.”
POSEIDON may give her “another choice,” but she pointed out that there are some aspects of the study to consider.
The study required patients to undergo four cycles of chemotherapy along with immunotherapy, “which certainly is standard in many of our practices.”
However, only two cycles of chemotherapy were given in the CheckMate 9LA trial, in which nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were added to chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IV NSCLC. This combination of immunotherapies, which block CTLA-4 and PD-1, is similar to the combination that was studied in the current trial, and it is already approved for use in some patients with lung cancer.
“Also key to point out,” said Dr. Brahmer, is that, in the POSEIDON trial, “there was a trend toward more poor prognostic factors in the chemotherapy arm, where these patients had more liver or central nervous system metastases.”
Despite these differences, the survival outcomes were similar in the two trials, and in both trials, the tails of the curves indicate that “we need to see long-term data” to determine whether the benefit is ongoing.
Which patients for which combos?
Considering all the data from key trials in advanced NSCLC, Dr. Brahmer said that she believes that, for patients with high PD-L1 expression, treatment with a single immunotherapy directed against PD-1 or PD-L1 “is appropriate” and that she didn’t see that adding a CTLA-4 inhibitor to the PD-L1 inhibitor and chemotherapy would give any advantage.
“But for PD-L1–negative disease, I do think CTLA-4 antibodies seem to provide a benefit, specifically seen in the CheckMate studies,” particularly for patients with squamous disease, although she noted that in POSEIDON, histology and PD-L1 status have not been analyzed.
Dr. Brahmer concluded that, although the triple therapy improved survival outcomes in the current study, several key questions remain.
These include determining what CTLA-4 inhibition adds to PD-L1 blockade and asking whether the “slightly increased toxicity” is “worth the slightly increased long-term duration of response” and improved survival outcomes.
Furthermore, it needs to be determined “which populations truly need” the combined approach; “to get to this, we need to find the biomarker for CTLA-4 benefit,” Dr. Brahmer said.
She also noted “a practical question: Is there room in the clinic for another CTLA-4 antibody in addition to the nivolumab/ipilimumab combinations?”
This last point was appreciated on social media. Jill Feldman, a lung cancer patient and advocate, described it on Twitter as a “great question.”
She said that, for her, “options equal hope,” but that it is “critical” to give the “best treatment first. ... So as a patient, I would ask: How do I know/you know which treatment would be best for me?”
With “so many options in the first-line setting,” subsets of patients who may benefit from quadruplet therapy versus monotherapy need to be defined, commented Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia. He added that “PD-L1 may be one biomarker, but we need more.”
More details of the POSEIDON trial
In the POSEIDON trial, investigators had the choice of different chemotherapy regimens: platinum/gemcitabine for patients with squamous disease, platinum/pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous disease, and nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin for patients with disease of either histology, Dr. Johnson reported.
It is noteworthy that the majority of patients were from Eastern Europe and Asia, “and the proportion of squamous patients enrolled was higher than is typically seen in mixed histology lung cancer studies,” she added.
The patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression at a cutoff of 50%, disease stage, and tumor histology.
Overall, 1,013 patients were enrolled. The three treatment arms were relatively well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics.
Dr. Johnson noted that there were “a few minor imbalances” in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab arm, with “fewer females, fewer Asians, and fewer never-smokers relative to the other two arms.”
The primary endpoint analysis after a median follow-up of 10.3 months demonstrated that PFS was significantly improved with durvalumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone, at a median of 5.5 months versus 4.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .00093).
Although OS improved numerically with the addition of durvalumab to chemotherapy, it did not reach significance (13.3 months vs. 11.7 months with chemotherapy alone; HR, 0.86; P = .07581).
The positive PFS benefit with durvalumab plus chemotherapy triggered a secondary endpoint analysis, which showed that adding tremelimumab to durvalumab plus chemotherapy improved both survival outcomes.
Median PFS with the triple combination therapy was 6.2 months, significantly longer than the 4.8 months seen with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.72; P = .00031).
At 12 months, 26.6% of patients who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy had not experienced disease progression, compared with 13.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
OS was also significantly improved, at 14.0 months among patients in the triple therapy arm versus 11.7 in the chemotherapy-alone arm (HR, 0.77; P = .00304).
The results also showed that at 24 months, 32.9% of triple therapy patients were still alive versus 22.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Analysis indicated that “most subgroups favored the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy.” There was a “trend toward improved survival for all patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Johnson said.
This was seen “in particular for the nonsquamous patients” and for those with tumor PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, he added.
It is notable that for a large proportion of combination-therapy patients, response had continued at 12 months. This was the case for 38.9% of those who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy and for 49.7% of those given triple therapy versus 21.4% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
As was seen across the whole cohort, among patients with nonsquamous disease, PFS and OS improved with the addition of immunotherapy. Of those patients with nonsquamous disease, 95.5% received pemetrexed plus platinum chemotherapy.
However, among patients with squamous tumors, of whom 88.3% received gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy, PFS and OS were “poor ... across all treatment arms,” Dr. Johnson reported, “with little separation of the curves.”
She highlighted the fact that the proportion of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events, whether of any cause or treatment related, was only slightly higher in the two immunotherapy arms, indicating that “most events were driven by the chemotherapy.”
The rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events leading to death were also similar across the three treatment arms, albeit they were slightly higher with the addition of immunotherapy.
Dr. Johnson also noted that, although there were more immune-mediated adverse events with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy, compared with durvalumab plus chemotherapy, the “majority were grade 1/2 and were manageable.”
The most common immune-mediated events in the two immunotherapy arms were hypothyroid and hepatic events, pneumonitis, dermatitis, and rash.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnson reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brahmer reported relationships with Amgen, AstratZeneca, BMA, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Revolution Medicine, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Combo treatment for NSCLC with brain metastases extends survival by two years for some
The trial is noteworthy because to date, few patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and untreated asymptomatic brain metastases (or those treated with corticosteroids), were ever included in clinical trials that examine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and immunotherapy together as first-line treatment, said Ernest Nadal, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona Catalan Institute of Oncology at L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. He and his colleagues presented their findings at the meeting, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).
With only 40 patients, the clinical trial was small, but the safety profile of atezolizumab combined with carboplatin and pemetrexed was favorable in patients with untreated brain metastases and those receiving corticosteroids (dexamethasone of 4 mg once a day or less).
At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, median intracranial and systemic progression-free survival – the co-primary study endpoints, along with safety – were 6.9 months and 8.9 months in 40 patients treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combination, and the 18-month progression-free survival rates were 10.4% and 24.9%, respectively, Dr. Nadal said.
Secondary study endpoints included response rate and overall survival rate. The overall response rate was 40% at 12 weeks; 19 patients (47.5%) had stable disease in the central nervous system, and 19 (47.5%) had a systemic response. The median overall survival was 13.6 months, and 2-year overall survival was 32%.
“The 12-week progression-free survival rate was 60%, [which was] above the expected rate of 50%, and the grade 2-4 toxicity rate was 27.5%, [which was] below the threshold of 35%,” Dr. Nadal said.
Four patients achieved complete response in the brain, and four patients had discordance between systemic and central nervous system response: two with progressive disease in the body and stable disease in the brain, and two with progressive disease in the brain and stable disease in the body.
Study subjects were chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC without estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic alterations and with untreated brain metastases. They were enrolled from 11 clinical sites and treated with carboplatin (5 AUCs) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) every 3 weeks for four to six cycles, followed by maintenance with pemetrexed plus atezolizumab for 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients were anemia (eight patients), back pain (four patients), thrombocytopenia (two patients) and dyspnea, pneumonitis, and elevated alanine transaminase (one patient each). Grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in three patients and included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hallucinations.
“Brain metastases are the most frequent cancer-related neurological complication and have a major impact on the neurocognitive function, quality of life, and the patient’s prognosis,” Dr. Nadal said, adding that local therapy could add toxicity and delay systemic treatment.
The progression-free survival findings in this study are similar to those reported in the KEYNOTE-189 clinical trial in patients with brain metastases, which showed improved outcomes with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Nadal said.
The safety profile was also favorable – even in the 17 patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline.
“This combination can result in clinical benefit in terms of overall survival in this population “Correlative studies with brain imaging and blood samples are currently ongoing,” he said.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Penn Medicine who specializes in lung cancer, said the findings help address how patients with untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases should be treated.
Taken together with findings from other prospective and retrospective trials in this population, the outcomes demonstrate that “in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, upfront immunochemotherapy is associated with intracranial response rates,” she said. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases can be safely treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but “proper patient selection is going to be key.”
Unanswered questions from this study include the size of brain metastases at trial enrollment, whether programmed death-ligand 1 status matters, and whether there is an optimal dose of steroids that should be mandated for inclusion into trials, Dr. Aggarwal added, noting that several trials enrolling patients with lung cancer are seeking to answer these questions.
Dr. Nadal reported receiving research support, speaker bureau fees, and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Aggarwal reported serving on an advisory board for multiple pharmaceutical companies. She also reported clinical trial funding to her institution from multiple companies.
The trial is noteworthy because to date, few patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and untreated asymptomatic brain metastases (or those treated with corticosteroids), were ever included in clinical trials that examine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and immunotherapy together as first-line treatment, said Ernest Nadal, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona Catalan Institute of Oncology at L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. He and his colleagues presented their findings at the meeting, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).
With only 40 patients, the clinical trial was small, but the safety profile of atezolizumab combined with carboplatin and pemetrexed was favorable in patients with untreated brain metastases and those receiving corticosteroids (dexamethasone of 4 mg once a day or less).
At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, median intracranial and systemic progression-free survival – the co-primary study endpoints, along with safety – were 6.9 months and 8.9 months in 40 patients treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combination, and the 18-month progression-free survival rates were 10.4% and 24.9%, respectively, Dr. Nadal said.
Secondary study endpoints included response rate and overall survival rate. The overall response rate was 40% at 12 weeks; 19 patients (47.5%) had stable disease in the central nervous system, and 19 (47.5%) had a systemic response. The median overall survival was 13.6 months, and 2-year overall survival was 32%.
“The 12-week progression-free survival rate was 60%, [which was] above the expected rate of 50%, and the grade 2-4 toxicity rate was 27.5%, [which was] below the threshold of 35%,” Dr. Nadal said.
Four patients achieved complete response in the brain, and four patients had discordance between systemic and central nervous system response: two with progressive disease in the body and stable disease in the brain, and two with progressive disease in the brain and stable disease in the body.
Study subjects were chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC without estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic alterations and with untreated brain metastases. They were enrolled from 11 clinical sites and treated with carboplatin (5 AUCs) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) every 3 weeks for four to six cycles, followed by maintenance with pemetrexed plus atezolizumab for 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients were anemia (eight patients), back pain (four patients), thrombocytopenia (two patients) and dyspnea, pneumonitis, and elevated alanine transaminase (one patient each). Grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in three patients and included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hallucinations.
“Brain metastases are the most frequent cancer-related neurological complication and have a major impact on the neurocognitive function, quality of life, and the patient’s prognosis,” Dr. Nadal said, adding that local therapy could add toxicity and delay systemic treatment.
The progression-free survival findings in this study are similar to those reported in the KEYNOTE-189 clinical trial in patients with brain metastases, which showed improved outcomes with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Nadal said.
The safety profile was also favorable – even in the 17 patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline.
“This combination can result in clinical benefit in terms of overall survival in this population “Correlative studies with brain imaging and blood samples are currently ongoing,” he said.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Penn Medicine who specializes in lung cancer, said the findings help address how patients with untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases should be treated.
Taken together with findings from other prospective and retrospective trials in this population, the outcomes demonstrate that “in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, upfront immunochemotherapy is associated with intracranial response rates,” she said. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases can be safely treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but “proper patient selection is going to be key.”
Unanswered questions from this study include the size of brain metastases at trial enrollment, whether programmed death-ligand 1 status matters, and whether there is an optimal dose of steroids that should be mandated for inclusion into trials, Dr. Aggarwal added, noting that several trials enrolling patients with lung cancer are seeking to answer these questions.
Dr. Nadal reported receiving research support, speaker bureau fees, and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Aggarwal reported serving on an advisory board for multiple pharmaceutical companies. She also reported clinical trial funding to her institution from multiple companies.
The trial is noteworthy because to date, few patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and untreated asymptomatic brain metastases (or those treated with corticosteroids), were ever included in clinical trials that examine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and immunotherapy together as first-line treatment, said Ernest Nadal, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona Catalan Institute of Oncology at L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. He and his colleagues presented their findings at the meeting, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).
With only 40 patients, the clinical trial was small, but the safety profile of atezolizumab combined with carboplatin and pemetrexed was favorable in patients with untreated brain metastases and those receiving corticosteroids (dexamethasone of 4 mg once a day or less).
At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, median intracranial and systemic progression-free survival – the co-primary study endpoints, along with safety – were 6.9 months and 8.9 months in 40 patients treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combination, and the 18-month progression-free survival rates were 10.4% and 24.9%, respectively, Dr. Nadal said.
Secondary study endpoints included response rate and overall survival rate. The overall response rate was 40% at 12 weeks; 19 patients (47.5%) had stable disease in the central nervous system, and 19 (47.5%) had a systemic response. The median overall survival was 13.6 months, and 2-year overall survival was 32%.
“The 12-week progression-free survival rate was 60%, [which was] above the expected rate of 50%, and the grade 2-4 toxicity rate was 27.5%, [which was] below the threshold of 35%,” Dr. Nadal said.
Four patients achieved complete response in the brain, and four patients had discordance between systemic and central nervous system response: two with progressive disease in the body and stable disease in the brain, and two with progressive disease in the brain and stable disease in the body.
Study subjects were chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC without estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic alterations and with untreated brain metastases. They were enrolled from 11 clinical sites and treated with carboplatin (5 AUCs) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) every 3 weeks for four to six cycles, followed by maintenance with pemetrexed plus atezolizumab for 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients were anemia (eight patients), back pain (four patients), thrombocytopenia (two patients) and dyspnea, pneumonitis, and elevated alanine transaminase (one patient each). Grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in three patients and included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hallucinations.
“Brain metastases are the most frequent cancer-related neurological complication and have a major impact on the neurocognitive function, quality of life, and the patient’s prognosis,” Dr. Nadal said, adding that local therapy could add toxicity and delay systemic treatment.
The progression-free survival findings in this study are similar to those reported in the KEYNOTE-189 clinical trial in patients with brain metastases, which showed improved outcomes with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Nadal said.
The safety profile was also favorable – even in the 17 patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline.
“This combination can result in clinical benefit in terms of overall survival in this population “Correlative studies with brain imaging and blood samples are currently ongoing,” he said.
Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Penn Medicine who specializes in lung cancer, said the findings help address how patients with untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases should be treated.
Taken together with findings from other prospective and retrospective trials in this population, the outcomes demonstrate that “in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, upfront immunochemotherapy is associated with intracranial response rates,” she said. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases can be safely treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but “proper patient selection is going to be key.”
Unanswered questions from this study include the size of brain metastases at trial enrollment, whether programmed death-ligand 1 status matters, and whether there is an optimal dose of steroids that should be mandated for inclusion into trials, Dr. Aggarwal added, noting that several trials enrolling patients with lung cancer are seeking to answer these questions.
Dr. Nadal reported receiving research support, speaker bureau fees, and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Aggarwal reported serving on an advisory board for multiple pharmaceutical companies. She also reported clinical trial funding to her institution from multiple companies.
REPORTING FROM WCLC 2021
COVID is especially dangerous for mesothelioma
according to Susana Cedres, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona.
At the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, she reported on her institution’s experience during the first year of the pandemic before widespread vaccine rollouts.
Among 38 malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients, seven (18%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 and of these, three patients were asymptomatic, four (57%) died of complications including bilateral pneumonia within a median of less than half a month after diagnosis, and a fifth patient died from MPM progression.
The findings confirm the particular risk of COVID in MPM. According to researchers reporting in Scientific Reports, mesothelioma was the only cancer linked to significantly worse outcomes. Other risks included tuberculosis, drug use, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, cardiomyopathy, and diabetes.
However, the Barcelona report only has seven patients, and it’s one of only a few to address the specifics of COVID in MPM.
“There really is a need for more inclusion of MPM patients in international [COVID] registries” to better characterize the course of infection and improve outcomes, said study discussant Francoise Galateau-Salle, MD, PhD, a mesothelioma expert at the Cancer Center Leon Berard in Lyon, France.
Among the seven positive cases in Barcelona, almost all had comorbidities, with the most common being cardiovascular disease in four patients (57%). Only two patients (29%) were on oncologic treatment at the time they were diagnosed, and the median age at diagnosis was 62 years. Four cases were in men, three in women. MPM stage was not reported.
WCLC 2021 was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
No funding source was reported. Dr. Cedres is an adviser and/or reported travel expenses from a number of companies, including Merck, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Galateau-Salle had no disclosures.
according to Susana Cedres, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona.
At the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, she reported on her institution’s experience during the first year of the pandemic before widespread vaccine rollouts.
Among 38 malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients, seven (18%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 and of these, three patients were asymptomatic, four (57%) died of complications including bilateral pneumonia within a median of less than half a month after diagnosis, and a fifth patient died from MPM progression.
The findings confirm the particular risk of COVID in MPM. According to researchers reporting in Scientific Reports, mesothelioma was the only cancer linked to significantly worse outcomes. Other risks included tuberculosis, drug use, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, cardiomyopathy, and diabetes.
However, the Barcelona report only has seven patients, and it’s one of only a few to address the specifics of COVID in MPM.
“There really is a need for more inclusion of MPM patients in international [COVID] registries” to better characterize the course of infection and improve outcomes, said study discussant Francoise Galateau-Salle, MD, PhD, a mesothelioma expert at the Cancer Center Leon Berard in Lyon, France.
Among the seven positive cases in Barcelona, almost all had comorbidities, with the most common being cardiovascular disease in four patients (57%). Only two patients (29%) were on oncologic treatment at the time they were diagnosed, and the median age at diagnosis was 62 years. Four cases were in men, three in women. MPM stage was not reported.
WCLC 2021 was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
No funding source was reported. Dr. Cedres is an adviser and/or reported travel expenses from a number of companies, including Merck, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Galateau-Salle had no disclosures.
according to Susana Cedres, MD, PhD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona.
At the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer, she reported on her institution’s experience during the first year of the pandemic before widespread vaccine rollouts.
Among 38 malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients, seven (18%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 and of these, three patients were asymptomatic, four (57%) died of complications including bilateral pneumonia within a median of less than half a month after diagnosis, and a fifth patient died from MPM progression.
The findings confirm the particular risk of COVID in MPM. According to researchers reporting in Scientific Reports, mesothelioma was the only cancer linked to significantly worse outcomes. Other risks included tuberculosis, drug use, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, cardiomyopathy, and diabetes.
However, the Barcelona report only has seven patients, and it’s one of only a few to address the specifics of COVID in MPM.
“There really is a need for more inclusion of MPM patients in international [COVID] registries” to better characterize the course of infection and improve outcomes, said study discussant Francoise Galateau-Salle, MD, PhD, a mesothelioma expert at the Cancer Center Leon Berard in Lyon, France.
Among the seven positive cases in Barcelona, almost all had comorbidities, with the most common being cardiovascular disease in four patients (57%). Only two patients (29%) were on oncologic treatment at the time they were diagnosed, and the median age at diagnosis was 62 years. Four cases were in men, three in women. MPM stage was not reported.
WCLC 2021 was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
No funding source was reported. Dr. Cedres is an adviser and/or reported travel expenses from a number of companies, including Merck, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Galateau-Salle had no disclosures.
FROM WCLC 2021
Air pollution – second leading cause of lung cancer
The new data show that the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to air pollution varies widely between countries. Serbia, Poland, China, Mongolia, and Turkey are among the worst affected. The analysis shows an association between deaths from lung cancer and the proportion of national energy that is produced from coal.
“Both smoking and air pollution are important causes of lung cancer,” said study presenter Christine D. Berg, MD, former codirector of the National Lung Screening Trial, and “both need to be eliminated to help prevent lung cancer and save lives.
“As lung cancer professionals, we can mitigate the effects of air pollution on causing lung cancer by speaking out for clean energy standards,” she said.
Dr. Berg presented the new analysis on Sept. 9 at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
She welcomed the recent statement issued by the IASLC in support of the International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies, which took place on Sept. 7. It was a call for action that emphasized the need for further efforts to improve air quality to protect human health.
The findings from the new analysis are “depressing,” commented Joachim G. J. V. Aerts, MD. PhD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
It is now clear that air pollution has an impact not only on the incidence of lung cancer but also on its outcome, he added.
Indeed, previous research showed that each 10 mcg/m3 increase in particular matter of 2.5 mcg in size was associated with a 15%-27% increase in lung cancer mortality. There was no difference in rates between women and men.
A key question, Dr. Aerts said, is whether reducing air pollution would be beneficial.
Efforts to reduce air pollution over recent decades in the United Kingdom have not led to a reduction in lung cancer deaths. This is because of the increase in life expectancy – individuals have been exposed to pollution for longer, albeit at lower levels, he pointed out.
Because of lockdowns during the COVID pandemic, travel has been greatly reduced. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in air pollution, “and this led to a decrease in the number of children born with low birth weight,” said Dr. Aerts.
Hopefully, that benefit will also be seen regarding other diseases, he added.
The call to action to reduce air pollution is of the “utmost importance,” he said. He noted that the focus should be on global, national, local, and personal preventive measures.
“It is time to join forces,” he added, “to ‘clean the air.’ ”
Dr. Berg’s presentation was warmly received on social media.
It was “fabulous,” commented Eric H. Bernicker, MD, director of medical thoracic oncology at Houston Methodist Cancer Center.
“Thoracic oncologists need to add air pollution to things they advocate about; we have an important voice here,” he added.
It is “so important to understand that air pollution is a human carcinogen,” commented Ivy Elkins, a lung cancer survivor and advocate and cofounder of the EGFR Resisters Lung Cancer Patient Group. “All you need are lungs to get lung cancer!”
Contribution of air pollution to lung cancer
In her presentation, Dr. Berg emphasized that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, although the distribution between countries “depends on historical and current smoking patterns and the demographics of the population.”
Overall, data from GLOBOCAN 2018 indicate that annually there are approximately 2.1 million incident cases of lung cancer and almost 1.8 million lung cancer deaths around the globe.
A recent study estimated that, worldwide, 14.1% of all lung cancer deaths, including in never-smokers, are directly linked to air pollution.
Dr. Berg said that this makes it the “second-leading cause of lung cancer” behind smoking.
The figure is somewhat lower for the United States, where around 4.7% of lung cancer deaths each year are directly attributable to pollution. However, with “the wildfires out West, we’re going to be seeing more of a toll from air pollution,” she predicted.
She pointed out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter, as a human carcinogen on the basis of evidence of an association with lung cancer.
It is thought that direct deposits and local effects of particulate matter lead to oxidative damage and low-grade chronic inflammation. These in turn result in molecular changes that affect DNA and gene transcription and inhibit apoptosis, all of which lead to the development of cancerous lesions, she explained.
Synthesizing various estimates on global burden of disease, Dr. Berg and colleagues calculated that in 2019 the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to particular matter in people aged 50-69 years was highest in Serbia, at 36.88 attributable deaths per 100,000.
Next was Poland, with a rate of 27.97 per 100,000, followed by China at 24.63 per 100,000, Mongolia at 19.71 per 100,000, and Turkey at 19.2 per 100,000.
The major sources of air pollution in the most affected countries were transportation, indoor cooking, and energy sources, she said.
In Serbia, 70% of energy production was from coal. It was 74% in Poland, 65% in China, 80% in Mongolia, 35% in Turkey, and 19% in the United States.
At the time of the analysis, only 17.3% of U.S. adults were smokers, and the air concentration of particular matter of 2.5 mcm was 9.6% mcg/m3. Both of these rates are far below those seen in more severely affected countries.
“But 40% of our energy now comes from natural gas,” noted Dr. Berg, “which is still a pollutant and a source of methane. It’s a very potent greenhouse gas.”
No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Berg has relationships with GRAIL and Mercy BioAnalytics. Dr. Aerts has relationships with Amphera, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new data show that the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to air pollution varies widely between countries. Serbia, Poland, China, Mongolia, and Turkey are among the worst affected. The analysis shows an association between deaths from lung cancer and the proportion of national energy that is produced from coal.
“Both smoking and air pollution are important causes of lung cancer,” said study presenter Christine D. Berg, MD, former codirector of the National Lung Screening Trial, and “both need to be eliminated to help prevent lung cancer and save lives.
“As lung cancer professionals, we can mitigate the effects of air pollution on causing lung cancer by speaking out for clean energy standards,” she said.
Dr. Berg presented the new analysis on Sept. 9 at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
She welcomed the recent statement issued by the IASLC in support of the International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies, which took place on Sept. 7. It was a call for action that emphasized the need for further efforts to improve air quality to protect human health.
The findings from the new analysis are “depressing,” commented Joachim G. J. V. Aerts, MD. PhD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
It is now clear that air pollution has an impact not only on the incidence of lung cancer but also on its outcome, he added.
Indeed, previous research showed that each 10 mcg/m3 increase in particular matter of 2.5 mcg in size was associated with a 15%-27% increase in lung cancer mortality. There was no difference in rates between women and men.
A key question, Dr. Aerts said, is whether reducing air pollution would be beneficial.
Efforts to reduce air pollution over recent decades in the United Kingdom have not led to a reduction in lung cancer deaths. This is because of the increase in life expectancy – individuals have been exposed to pollution for longer, albeit at lower levels, he pointed out.
Because of lockdowns during the COVID pandemic, travel has been greatly reduced. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in air pollution, “and this led to a decrease in the number of children born with low birth weight,” said Dr. Aerts.
Hopefully, that benefit will also be seen regarding other diseases, he added.
The call to action to reduce air pollution is of the “utmost importance,” he said. He noted that the focus should be on global, national, local, and personal preventive measures.
“It is time to join forces,” he added, “to ‘clean the air.’ ”
Dr. Berg’s presentation was warmly received on social media.
It was “fabulous,” commented Eric H. Bernicker, MD, director of medical thoracic oncology at Houston Methodist Cancer Center.
“Thoracic oncologists need to add air pollution to things they advocate about; we have an important voice here,” he added.
It is “so important to understand that air pollution is a human carcinogen,” commented Ivy Elkins, a lung cancer survivor and advocate and cofounder of the EGFR Resisters Lung Cancer Patient Group. “All you need are lungs to get lung cancer!”
Contribution of air pollution to lung cancer
In her presentation, Dr. Berg emphasized that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, although the distribution between countries “depends on historical and current smoking patterns and the demographics of the population.”
Overall, data from GLOBOCAN 2018 indicate that annually there are approximately 2.1 million incident cases of lung cancer and almost 1.8 million lung cancer deaths around the globe.
A recent study estimated that, worldwide, 14.1% of all lung cancer deaths, including in never-smokers, are directly linked to air pollution.
Dr. Berg said that this makes it the “second-leading cause of lung cancer” behind smoking.
The figure is somewhat lower for the United States, where around 4.7% of lung cancer deaths each year are directly attributable to pollution. However, with “the wildfires out West, we’re going to be seeing more of a toll from air pollution,” she predicted.
She pointed out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter, as a human carcinogen on the basis of evidence of an association with lung cancer.
It is thought that direct deposits and local effects of particulate matter lead to oxidative damage and low-grade chronic inflammation. These in turn result in molecular changes that affect DNA and gene transcription and inhibit apoptosis, all of which lead to the development of cancerous lesions, she explained.
Synthesizing various estimates on global burden of disease, Dr. Berg and colleagues calculated that in 2019 the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to particular matter in people aged 50-69 years was highest in Serbia, at 36.88 attributable deaths per 100,000.
Next was Poland, with a rate of 27.97 per 100,000, followed by China at 24.63 per 100,000, Mongolia at 19.71 per 100,000, and Turkey at 19.2 per 100,000.
The major sources of air pollution in the most affected countries were transportation, indoor cooking, and energy sources, she said.
In Serbia, 70% of energy production was from coal. It was 74% in Poland, 65% in China, 80% in Mongolia, 35% in Turkey, and 19% in the United States.
At the time of the analysis, only 17.3% of U.S. adults were smokers, and the air concentration of particular matter of 2.5 mcm was 9.6% mcg/m3. Both of these rates are far below those seen in more severely affected countries.
“But 40% of our energy now comes from natural gas,” noted Dr. Berg, “which is still a pollutant and a source of methane. It’s a very potent greenhouse gas.”
No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Berg has relationships with GRAIL and Mercy BioAnalytics. Dr. Aerts has relationships with Amphera, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new data show that the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to air pollution varies widely between countries. Serbia, Poland, China, Mongolia, and Turkey are among the worst affected. The analysis shows an association between deaths from lung cancer and the proportion of national energy that is produced from coal.
“Both smoking and air pollution are important causes of lung cancer,” said study presenter Christine D. Berg, MD, former codirector of the National Lung Screening Trial, and “both need to be eliminated to help prevent lung cancer and save lives.
“As lung cancer professionals, we can mitigate the effects of air pollution on causing lung cancer by speaking out for clean energy standards,” she said.
Dr. Berg presented the new analysis on Sept. 9 at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
She welcomed the recent statement issued by the IASLC in support of the International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies, which took place on Sept. 7. It was a call for action that emphasized the need for further efforts to improve air quality to protect human health.
The findings from the new analysis are “depressing,” commented Joachim G. J. V. Aerts, MD. PhD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
It is now clear that air pollution has an impact not only on the incidence of lung cancer but also on its outcome, he added.
Indeed, previous research showed that each 10 mcg/m3 increase in particular matter of 2.5 mcg in size was associated with a 15%-27% increase in lung cancer mortality. There was no difference in rates between women and men.
A key question, Dr. Aerts said, is whether reducing air pollution would be beneficial.
Efforts to reduce air pollution over recent decades in the United Kingdom have not led to a reduction in lung cancer deaths. This is because of the increase in life expectancy – individuals have been exposed to pollution for longer, albeit at lower levels, he pointed out.
Because of lockdowns during the COVID pandemic, travel has been greatly reduced. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in air pollution, “and this led to a decrease in the number of children born with low birth weight,” said Dr. Aerts.
Hopefully, that benefit will also be seen regarding other diseases, he added.
The call to action to reduce air pollution is of the “utmost importance,” he said. He noted that the focus should be on global, national, local, and personal preventive measures.
“It is time to join forces,” he added, “to ‘clean the air.’ ”
Dr. Berg’s presentation was warmly received on social media.
It was “fabulous,” commented Eric H. Bernicker, MD, director of medical thoracic oncology at Houston Methodist Cancer Center.
“Thoracic oncologists need to add air pollution to things they advocate about; we have an important voice here,” he added.
It is “so important to understand that air pollution is a human carcinogen,” commented Ivy Elkins, a lung cancer survivor and advocate and cofounder of the EGFR Resisters Lung Cancer Patient Group. “All you need are lungs to get lung cancer!”
Contribution of air pollution to lung cancer
In her presentation, Dr. Berg emphasized that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, although the distribution between countries “depends on historical and current smoking patterns and the demographics of the population.”
Overall, data from GLOBOCAN 2018 indicate that annually there are approximately 2.1 million incident cases of lung cancer and almost 1.8 million lung cancer deaths around the globe.
A recent study estimated that, worldwide, 14.1% of all lung cancer deaths, including in never-smokers, are directly linked to air pollution.
Dr. Berg said that this makes it the “second-leading cause of lung cancer” behind smoking.
The figure is somewhat lower for the United States, where around 4.7% of lung cancer deaths each year are directly attributable to pollution. However, with “the wildfires out West, we’re going to be seeing more of a toll from air pollution,” she predicted.
She pointed out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter, as a human carcinogen on the basis of evidence of an association with lung cancer.
It is thought that direct deposits and local effects of particulate matter lead to oxidative damage and low-grade chronic inflammation. These in turn result in molecular changes that affect DNA and gene transcription and inhibit apoptosis, all of which lead to the development of cancerous lesions, she explained.
Synthesizing various estimates on global burden of disease, Dr. Berg and colleagues calculated that in 2019 the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to particular matter in people aged 50-69 years was highest in Serbia, at 36.88 attributable deaths per 100,000.
Next was Poland, with a rate of 27.97 per 100,000, followed by China at 24.63 per 100,000, Mongolia at 19.71 per 100,000, and Turkey at 19.2 per 100,000.
The major sources of air pollution in the most affected countries were transportation, indoor cooking, and energy sources, she said.
In Serbia, 70% of energy production was from coal. It was 74% in Poland, 65% in China, 80% in Mongolia, 35% in Turkey, and 19% in the United States.
At the time of the analysis, only 17.3% of U.S. adults were smokers, and the air concentration of particular matter of 2.5 mcm was 9.6% mcg/m3. Both of these rates are far below those seen in more severely affected countries.
“But 40% of our energy now comes from natural gas,” noted Dr. Berg, “which is still a pollutant and a source of methane. It’s a very potent greenhouse gas.”
No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Berg has relationships with GRAIL and Mercy BioAnalytics. Dr. Aerts has relationships with Amphera, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Unequal resource distribution underlies lung cancer disparities
Lung cancer disparities are reversible, but it will take changes at the social policy and organizational levels to do it, according to Ray Osarogiagbon, MBBS, a medical oncologist in the thoracic oncology program at Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis.
Much of the issue comes down to unequal distribution of services across the country, with less high-end care available in areas hardest hit by lung cancer, which are often areas with higher percentages of Black people, Dr. Osarogiagbon said. He addressed the issues – which he conceptualizes as “avoidable differences” – in a plenary presentation at the virtual 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer.
He said that much of disparity research has focused on patient-level issues, but it has the least potential to effect change and also has “the unpleasant side effect of stigmatizing the victims of disparate health care delivery.”
Better to look at the big picture. “We have to focus on the areas where we are most likely to be successful, the social policy level, next the organizational level, and then providers,” he said.
Kentucky, followed by Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Alabama, has the highest lung cancer burden in the United States. While lung cancer has been on the decline for decades nationwide, some counties in those states in particular continue to struggle with rising lung cancer mortality.
Dr. Osarogiagbon’s own health care system, which serves western Tennessee as well as eastern Arkansas and northern Mississippi, sees about 1,300 lung cancer cases annually, more than many states in the United States.
Regional disparities in lung cancer care span the entirety of available services, from unequal access to tobacco cessation and other preventive measures straight through to access to leading-edge systemic therapies. Disparities are particularly acute with more recent advances such as immunotherapy and low-dose CT screening.
One recent study, for instance, found that several southern states with high lung cancer burdens had screening rates below 4%, while several New England states had rates ranging to over 15%.
“There is a mismatch between the places were lung cancer kills and the places where we have invested in low-dose CT scan facilities,” Dr. Osarogiagbon said. As a side effect, White patients have better access,
It’s not, he said, that Black people are more likely to refuse such services, as least as far as clinical trials go.
Black patients are significantly underrepresented in pharmaceutical industry trials. Part of the issues is that areas hardest hit by lung cancer are often also ones less likely to have the infrastructure to support trials.
But on an equal playing field, Black patients are at least as eager as White patients to sign up for a trial. Dr. Osarogiagbon and colleagues found that, if offered the chance, almost 60% of Black patients said they would participate in a trial versus 53.4% of White patients. If access were equal, there would be “no race-based disparities” in trial participation, he said.
It’s also emerging that Black patients might benefit more from innovations such as immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment and low-dose CT screening, which means that, if they were included in more trials, companies would likely have stronger study results.
It’s something they should pay attention to, if for no other reason than it would help their bottom line, Dr. Osarogiagbon said.
Curative surgery for early-stage lung tumors is another issue. At the county level in the United States, he and his team found that it’s offered to anywhere from 13% to 92% of patients who qualify.
“Counties in the lowest quartile for receipt of surgery were those with a high proportion of non-Hispanic Black subjects, high poverty and uninsured rates, low surgeon-to-population ratio, and nonmetropolitan status,” they found.
Dr. Osarogiagbon is a consultant for and/or has stock in a number of companies, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Genentech.
Lung cancer disparities are reversible, but it will take changes at the social policy and organizational levels to do it, according to Ray Osarogiagbon, MBBS, a medical oncologist in the thoracic oncology program at Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis.
Much of the issue comes down to unequal distribution of services across the country, with less high-end care available in areas hardest hit by lung cancer, which are often areas with higher percentages of Black people, Dr. Osarogiagbon said. He addressed the issues – which he conceptualizes as “avoidable differences” – in a plenary presentation at the virtual 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer.
He said that much of disparity research has focused on patient-level issues, but it has the least potential to effect change and also has “the unpleasant side effect of stigmatizing the victims of disparate health care delivery.”
Better to look at the big picture. “We have to focus on the areas where we are most likely to be successful, the social policy level, next the organizational level, and then providers,” he said.
Kentucky, followed by Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Alabama, has the highest lung cancer burden in the United States. While lung cancer has been on the decline for decades nationwide, some counties in those states in particular continue to struggle with rising lung cancer mortality.
Dr. Osarogiagbon’s own health care system, which serves western Tennessee as well as eastern Arkansas and northern Mississippi, sees about 1,300 lung cancer cases annually, more than many states in the United States.
Regional disparities in lung cancer care span the entirety of available services, from unequal access to tobacco cessation and other preventive measures straight through to access to leading-edge systemic therapies. Disparities are particularly acute with more recent advances such as immunotherapy and low-dose CT screening.
One recent study, for instance, found that several southern states with high lung cancer burdens had screening rates below 4%, while several New England states had rates ranging to over 15%.
“There is a mismatch between the places were lung cancer kills and the places where we have invested in low-dose CT scan facilities,” Dr. Osarogiagbon said. As a side effect, White patients have better access,
It’s not, he said, that Black people are more likely to refuse such services, as least as far as clinical trials go.
Black patients are significantly underrepresented in pharmaceutical industry trials. Part of the issues is that areas hardest hit by lung cancer are often also ones less likely to have the infrastructure to support trials.
But on an equal playing field, Black patients are at least as eager as White patients to sign up for a trial. Dr. Osarogiagbon and colleagues found that, if offered the chance, almost 60% of Black patients said they would participate in a trial versus 53.4% of White patients. If access were equal, there would be “no race-based disparities” in trial participation, he said.
It’s also emerging that Black patients might benefit more from innovations such as immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment and low-dose CT screening, which means that, if they were included in more trials, companies would likely have stronger study results.
It’s something they should pay attention to, if for no other reason than it would help their bottom line, Dr. Osarogiagbon said.
Curative surgery for early-stage lung tumors is another issue. At the county level in the United States, he and his team found that it’s offered to anywhere from 13% to 92% of patients who qualify.
“Counties in the lowest quartile for receipt of surgery were those with a high proportion of non-Hispanic Black subjects, high poverty and uninsured rates, low surgeon-to-population ratio, and nonmetropolitan status,” they found.
Dr. Osarogiagbon is a consultant for and/or has stock in a number of companies, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Genentech.
Lung cancer disparities are reversible, but it will take changes at the social policy and organizational levels to do it, according to Ray Osarogiagbon, MBBS, a medical oncologist in the thoracic oncology program at Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis.
Much of the issue comes down to unequal distribution of services across the country, with less high-end care available in areas hardest hit by lung cancer, which are often areas with higher percentages of Black people, Dr. Osarogiagbon said. He addressed the issues – which he conceptualizes as “avoidable differences” – in a plenary presentation at the virtual 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer.
He said that much of disparity research has focused on patient-level issues, but it has the least potential to effect change and also has “the unpleasant side effect of stigmatizing the victims of disparate health care delivery.”
Better to look at the big picture. “We have to focus on the areas where we are most likely to be successful, the social policy level, next the organizational level, and then providers,” he said.
Kentucky, followed by Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Alabama, has the highest lung cancer burden in the United States. While lung cancer has been on the decline for decades nationwide, some counties in those states in particular continue to struggle with rising lung cancer mortality.
Dr. Osarogiagbon’s own health care system, which serves western Tennessee as well as eastern Arkansas and northern Mississippi, sees about 1,300 lung cancer cases annually, more than many states in the United States.
Regional disparities in lung cancer care span the entirety of available services, from unequal access to tobacco cessation and other preventive measures straight through to access to leading-edge systemic therapies. Disparities are particularly acute with more recent advances such as immunotherapy and low-dose CT screening.
One recent study, for instance, found that several southern states with high lung cancer burdens had screening rates below 4%, while several New England states had rates ranging to over 15%.
“There is a mismatch between the places were lung cancer kills and the places where we have invested in low-dose CT scan facilities,” Dr. Osarogiagbon said. As a side effect, White patients have better access,
It’s not, he said, that Black people are more likely to refuse such services, as least as far as clinical trials go.
Black patients are significantly underrepresented in pharmaceutical industry trials. Part of the issues is that areas hardest hit by lung cancer are often also ones less likely to have the infrastructure to support trials.
But on an equal playing field, Black patients are at least as eager as White patients to sign up for a trial. Dr. Osarogiagbon and colleagues found that, if offered the chance, almost 60% of Black patients said they would participate in a trial versus 53.4% of White patients. If access were equal, there would be “no race-based disparities” in trial participation, he said.
It’s also emerging that Black patients might benefit more from innovations such as immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment and low-dose CT screening, which means that, if they were included in more trials, companies would likely have stronger study results.
It’s something they should pay attention to, if for no other reason than it would help their bottom line, Dr. Osarogiagbon said.
Curative surgery for early-stage lung tumors is another issue. At the county level in the United States, he and his team found that it’s offered to anywhere from 13% to 92% of patients who qualify.
“Counties in the lowest quartile for receipt of surgery were those with a high proportion of non-Hispanic Black subjects, high poverty and uninsured rates, low surgeon-to-population ratio, and nonmetropolitan status,” they found.
Dr. Osarogiagbon is a consultant for and/or has stock in a number of companies, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Genentech.
FROM WCLC 2021
Finding the most bang for the buck with adjuvant atezolizumab for NSCLC
Investigators are zeroing in on the stage II-IIIa non–small cell lung cancer patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) following resection and chemotherapy.
It seems that PD-L1 positive patients, those who undergo lobectomy, those who have nodal involvement, and those treated with all common platinum doublets, with the possible exception of cisplatin-gemcitabine, are most likely to benefit from adjuvant treatment, according to a report at the virtual 2021 World Congress on Lung Cancer.
Results come for an analysis of IMpower010, which randomized 1,005 patients equally to either best supportive care or atezolizumab every 21 days for 16 cycles following resection and chemotherapy.
The topline results, reported recently, found a 34% improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) in stage II-IIIa patients expressing PD-L1 and a 21% improvement across all patients regardless of PD-L1 expression.
It was the first positive phase 3 trial for adjuvant immunotherapy in NSCLC. Maker Hoffman-La Roche subsequently applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for an indication for adjuvant treatment following surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy for NSCLC with PD-L1 expression of at least 1%.
At the WCLC meeting, investigators took a closer look at IMpower010 to gauge the impact of different surgery and chemotherapy types on outcomes.
“Improved DFS was observed with adjuvant atezolizumab” for II-IIIa disease across most stages in patients “with nodal involvement, and across most surgery resection types and chemotherapy regimens,” said lead investigator Nasser Altorki, MD, director of the division of thoracic surgery at New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York.
Study discussant Ichiro Yoshino, MD, PhD, a thoracic surgeon at Chiba University, in Japan, expanded on the “most” part of the assertion.
“Patients who underwent lobectomy [78%] had more evident benefit. … Patients who had a pneumonectomy [16%] did not benefit from atezolizumab,” he said (DFS hazard ratio, 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.47).
The reasons are unclear. It could be because patients who have pneumonectomies are less tolerant of adjuvant chemotherapy, so might have not gotten complete courses, but whatever the cause, Dr. Yoshino said it’s an important finding that needs further investigation.
Also, there was no DFS benefit in the 16% of patients who received cisplatin-gemcitabine for chemotherapy instead of other platinum doublets (HR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.56-1.57).
It might have to do with the fact that under 80% of cisplatin-gemcitabine patients completed all four cycles of chemotherapy versus completion rates of up to more than 90% with other platinum doublets. It might also, however, have something to do with the way gemcitabine works or its interaction with atezolizumab.
The issue is another one that needs “to be examined,” Dr. Yoshino said.
The trial was funded by Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Altorki is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson. Among various company ties, Dr. Yoshino is an advisor and speaker for AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson and a researcher for Pfizer.
Investigators are zeroing in on the stage II-IIIa non–small cell lung cancer patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) following resection and chemotherapy.
It seems that PD-L1 positive patients, those who undergo lobectomy, those who have nodal involvement, and those treated with all common platinum doublets, with the possible exception of cisplatin-gemcitabine, are most likely to benefit from adjuvant treatment, according to a report at the virtual 2021 World Congress on Lung Cancer.
Results come for an analysis of IMpower010, which randomized 1,005 patients equally to either best supportive care or atezolizumab every 21 days for 16 cycles following resection and chemotherapy.
The topline results, reported recently, found a 34% improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) in stage II-IIIa patients expressing PD-L1 and a 21% improvement across all patients regardless of PD-L1 expression.
It was the first positive phase 3 trial for adjuvant immunotherapy in NSCLC. Maker Hoffman-La Roche subsequently applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for an indication for adjuvant treatment following surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy for NSCLC with PD-L1 expression of at least 1%.
At the WCLC meeting, investigators took a closer look at IMpower010 to gauge the impact of different surgery and chemotherapy types on outcomes.
“Improved DFS was observed with adjuvant atezolizumab” for II-IIIa disease across most stages in patients “with nodal involvement, and across most surgery resection types and chemotherapy regimens,” said lead investigator Nasser Altorki, MD, director of the division of thoracic surgery at New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York.
Study discussant Ichiro Yoshino, MD, PhD, a thoracic surgeon at Chiba University, in Japan, expanded on the “most” part of the assertion.
“Patients who underwent lobectomy [78%] had more evident benefit. … Patients who had a pneumonectomy [16%] did not benefit from atezolizumab,” he said (DFS hazard ratio, 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.47).
The reasons are unclear. It could be because patients who have pneumonectomies are less tolerant of adjuvant chemotherapy, so might have not gotten complete courses, but whatever the cause, Dr. Yoshino said it’s an important finding that needs further investigation.
Also, there was no DFS benefit in the 16% of patients who received cisplatin-gemcitabine for chemotherapy instead of other platinum doublets (HR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.56-1.57).
It might have to do with the fact that under 80% of cisplatin-gemcitabine patients completed all four cycles of chemotherapy versus completion rates of up to more than 90% with other platinum doublets. It might also, however, have something to do with the way gemcitabine works or its interaction with atezolizumab.
The issue is another one that needs “to be examined,” Dr. Yoshino said.
The trial was funded by Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Altorki is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson. Among various company ties, Dr. Yoshino is an advisor and speaker for AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson and a researcher for Pfizer.
Investigators are zeroing in on the stage II-IIIa non–small cell lung cancer patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq) following resection and chemotherapy.
It seems that PD-L1 positive patients, those who undergo lobectomy, those who have nodal involvement, and those treated with all common platinum doublets, with the possible exception of cisplatin-gemcitabine, are most likely to benefit from adjuvant treatment, according to a report at the virtual 2021 World Congress on Lung Cancer.
Results come for an analysis of IMpower010, which randomized 1,005 patients equally to either best supportive care or atezolizumab every 21 days for 16 cycles following resection and chemotherapy.
The topline results, reported recently, found a 34% improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) in stage II-IIIa patients expressing PD-L1 and a 21% improvement across all patients regardless of PD-L1 expression.
It was the first positive phase 3 trial for adjuvant immunotherapy in NSCLC. Maker Hoffman-La Roche subsequently applied to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for an indication for adjuvant treatment following surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy for NSCLC with PD-L1 expression of at least 1%.
At the WCLC meeting, investigators took a closer look at IMpower010 to gauge the impact of different surgery and chemotherapy types on outcomes.
“Improved DFS was observed with adjuvant atezolizumab” for II-IIIa disease across most stages in patients “with nodal involvement, and across most surgery resection types and chemotherapy regimens,” said lead investigator Nasser Altorki, MD, director of the division of thoracic surgery at New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York.
Study discussant Ichiro Yoshino, MD, PhD, a thoracic surgeon at Chiba University, in Japan, expanded on the “most” part of the assertion.
“Patients who underwent lobectomy [78%] had more evident benefit. … Patients who had a pneumonectomy [16%] did not benefit from atezolizumab,” he said (DFS hazard ratio, 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.47).
The reasons are unclear. It could be because patients who have pneumonectomies are less tolerant of adjuvant chemotherapy, so might have not gotten complete courses, but whatever the cause, Dr. Yoshino said it’s an important finding that needs further investigation.
Also, there was no DFS benefit in the 16% of patients who received cisplatin-gemcitabine for chemotherapy instead of other platinum doublets (HR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.56-1.57).
It might have to do with the fact that under 80% of cisplatin-gemcitabine patients completed all four cycles of chemotherapy versus completion rates of up to more than 90% with other platinum doublets. It might also, however, have something to do with the way gemcitabine works or its interaction with atezolizumab.
The issue is another one that needs “to be examined,” Dr. Yoshino said.
The trial was funded by Hoffman-La Roche. Dr. Altorki is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson. Among various company ties, Dr. Yoshino is an advisor and speaker for AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson and a researcher for Pfizer.
FROM WCLC 2021