Clinical Insights

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One summarizes a late analysis of a previously published randomized trial in stage IV NSCLC with three or fewer sites of metastasis – oligometastatic disease. The other reviews deidentified patient data to discern whether immune-targeted treatment might be valuable in particular subsets of NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.

Local consolidative therapy

Daniel R. Gomez, MD, and colleagues published an updated analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and an initial analysis of overall survival (OS) data in a randomized phase 2 trial in oligometastatic NSCLC. As originally published, patients were randomized to local consolidative treatment (LCT) versus standard maintenance therapy or observation (MT/O). Patients were required to have responding or stable disease after first-line systemic therapy prior to randomization.

Among the 49 patients who received LCT, there was a clear benefit of LCT (PFS of 14.2 months vs. 4.4 months for MT/O; P = .022; and median OS 41.2 months vs. 17.0 months; P = .017). The OS benefit was seen despite allowing crossover to LCT for patients who demonstrated disease progression in the MT/O arm.
 

What this means in practice

These data are exciting and move clinical research forward – if not, at this time, clinical practice. They support the ongoing clinical trials in NSCLC (NRG LU002) and breast cancer (NRG BR002) investigating the role of LCT in the oligometastatic setting.

For patients who are not candidates for (or choose not to participate in) these important phase 2R/3 trials, I believe that LCT should be discussed with all of the caveats that the authors appropriately mention, from the small number of patients because of the premature closure of the trial, to heterogeneous systemic regimens, to the lack of clarity on whether newer systemic therapies are better.

Immune checkpoint blockade

Historically, EGFR-mutated NSCLCs have not derived comparable benefit to EGFR-wild type (WT) tumors from checkpoint inhibitors. For that reason, in EGFR-mutated tumors, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) suggest immune-targeted treatment should be used only on clinical trials or after receipt of EGFR-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors and cytotoxic chemotherapy. Several recent studies (IMpower and ATLANTIC), however, have suggested that selected EGFR-mutated patients can benefit from immune-targeted treatment.

Katherine Hastings, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates found, in a multi-institution clinical-molecular data review, that among the 44 of 171 EGFR-mutated tumors with L858R mutations, benefit from checkpoint inhibitors was comparable to WT tumors with regard to overall response rate and OS, but not PFS. Additionally, tumors with the EGFR T790M mutation demonstrated similar benefit from checkpoint inhibitors as in WT tumors, L858R-mutated tumors (but not exon 19 deleted tumors) had high tumor mutation burden, and PD-L1 expression did not influence outcome from immunotherapy.
 

What this means in practice

I agree with the modesty of the authors’ conclusion that these findings should not change clinical practice but rather should encourage further research into which patients with EGFR-mutant disease might benefit from immune-targeted therapy. For now, outside of a clinical trial, in EGFR-mutated patients, I will follow NCCN guidelines, using immune-targeted therapy off-study only with attentiveness to the particular immunotherapy regimens that have shown promise in the literature – and later, not earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One summarizes a late analysis of a previously published randomized trial in stage IV NSCLC with three or fewer sites of metastasis – oligometastatic disease. The other reviews deidentified patient data to discern whether immune-targeted treatment might be valuable in particular subsets of NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.

Local consolidative therapy

Daniel R. Gomez, MD, and colleagues published an updated analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and an initial analysis of overall survival (OS) data in a randomized phase 2 trial in oligometastatic NSCLC. As originally published, patients were randomized to local consolidative treatment (LCT) versus standard maintenance therapy or observation (MT/O). Patients were required to have responding or stable disease after first-line systemic therapy prior to randomization.

Among the 49 patients who received LCT, there was a clear benefit of LCT (PFS of 14.2 months vs. 4.4 months for MT/O; P = .022; and median OS 41.2 months vs. 17.0 months; P = .017). The OS benefit was seen despite allowing crossover to LCT for patients who demonstrated disease progression in the MT/O arm.
 

What this means in practice

These data are exciting and move clinical research forward – if not, at this time, clinical practice. They support the ongoing clinical trials in NSCLC (NRG LU002) and breast cancer (NRG BR002) investigating the role of LCT in the oligometastatic setting.

For patients who are not candidates for (or choose not to participate in) these important phase 2R/3 trials, I believe that LCT should be discussed with all of the caveats that the authors appropriately mention, from the small number of patients because of the premature closure of the trial, to heterogeneous systemic regimens, to the lack of clarity on whether newer systemic therapies are better.

Immune checkpoint blockade

Historically, EGFR-mutated NSCLCs have not derived comparable benefit to EGFR-wild type (WT) tumors from checkpoint inhibitors. For that reason, in EGFR-mutated tumors, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) suggest immune-targeted treatment should be used only on clinical trials or after receipt of EGFR-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors and cytotoxic chemotherapy. Several recent studies (IMpower and ATLANTIC), however, have suggested that selected EGFR-mutated patients can benefit from immune-targeted treatment.

Katherine Hastings, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates found, in a multi-institution clinical-molecular data review, that among the 44 of 171 EGFR-mutated tumors with L858R mutations, benefit from checkpoint inhibitors was comparable to WT tumors with regard to overall response rate and OS, but not PFS. Additionally, tumors with the EGFR T790M mutation demonstrated similar benefit from checkpoint inhibitors as in WT tumors, L858R-mutated tumors (but not exon 19 deleted tumors) had high tumor mutation burden, and PD-L1 expression did not influence outcome from immunotherapy.
 

What this means in practice

I agree with the modesty of the authors’ conclusion that these findings should not change clinical practice but rather should encourage further research into which patients with EGFR-mutant disease might benefit from immune-targeted therapy. For now, outside of a clinical trial, in EGFR-mutated patients, I will follow NCCN guidelines, using immune-targeted therapy off-study only with attentiveness to the particular immunotherapy regimens that have shown promise in the literature – and later, not earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One summarizes a late analysis of a previously published randomized trial in stage IV NSCLC with three or fewer sites of metastasis – oligometastatic disease. The other reviews deidentified patient data to discern whether immune-targeted treatment might be valuable in particular subsets of NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations.

Local consolidative therapy

Daniel R. Gomez, MD, and colleagues published an updated analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and an initial analysis of overall survival (OS) data in a randomized phase 2 trial in oligometastatic NSCLC. As originally published, patients were randomized to local consolidative treatment (LCT) versus standard maintenance therapy or observation (MT/O). Patients were required to have responding or stable disease after first-line systemic therapy prior to randomization.

Among the 49 patients who received LCT, there was a clear benefit of LCT (PFS of 14.2 months vs. 4.4 months for MT/O; P = .022; and median OS 41.2 months vs. 17.0 months; P = .017). The OS benefit was seen despite allowing crossover to LCT for patients who demonstrated disease progression in the MT/O arm.
 

What this means in practice

These data are exciting and move clinical research forward – if not, at this time, clinical practice. They support the ongoing clinical trials in NSCLC (NRG LU002) and breast cancer (NRG BR002) investigating the role of LCT in the oligometastatic setting.

For patients who are not candidates for (or choose not to participate in) these important phase 2R/3 trials, I believe that LCT should be discussed with all of the caveats that the authors appropriately mention, from the small number of patients because of the premature closure of the trial, to heterogeneous systemic regimens, to the lack of clarity on whether newer systemic therapies are better.

Immune checkpoint blockade

Historically, EGFR-mutated NSCLCs have not derived comparable benefit to EGFR-wild type (WT) tumors from checkpoint inhibitors. For that reason, in EGFR-mutated tumors, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) suggest immune-targeted treatment should be used only on clinical trials or after receipt of EGFR-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors and cytotoxic chemotherapy. Several recent studies (IMpower and ATLANTIC), however, have suggested that selected EGFR-mutated patients can benefit from immune-targeted treatment.

Katherine Hastings, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates found, in a multi-institution clinical-molecular data review, that among the 44 of 171 EGFR-mutated tumors with L858R mutations, benefit from checkpoint inhibitors was comparable to WT tumors with regard to overall response rate and OS, but not PFS. Additionally, tumors with the EGFR T790M mutation demonstrated similar benefit from checkpoint inhibitors as in WT tumors, L858R-mutated tumors (but not exon 19 deleted tumors) had high tumor mutation burden, and PD-L1 expression did not influence outcome from immunotherapy.
 

What this means in practice

I agree with the modesty of the authors’ conclusion that these findings should not change clinical practice but rather should encourage further research into which patients with EGFR-mutant disease might benefit from immune-targeted therapy. For now, outside of a clinical trial, in EGFR-mutated patients, I will follow NCCN guidelines, using immune-targeted therapy off-study only with attentiveness to the particular immunotherapy regimens that have shown promise in the literature – and later, not earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials – a late-breaking abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association on the value of enzalutamide in hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC) patients and a recent publication in JAMA Oncology about the potential for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing to inform our management of early stage colorectal cancer (CRC).

ARCHES trial

The ARCHES trial was reported as a late-breaking abstract at AUA 2019. ARCHES was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 1,150 men with mHSPC. Patients were required to have been free from radiographic disease progression or a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level for at least 3 months on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or at least 6 months after prior docetaxel chemotherapy.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ADT plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor) or ADT plus placebo. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and death within 24 weeks.

ADT plus enzalutamide had dramatically better PSA-related endpoints (as expected) and produced significantly better rPFS (median PFS, not reached versus 19.5 months; 61% relative prolongation of rPFS) than placebo plus ADT.

Overall survival data were unreported and may be confounded by all patients being offered enzalutamide at progression. Despite the known adverse effects of enzalutamide from prior studies, enzalutamide-related adverse effects in ARCHES were no worse than placebo (about 85% in both study arms). Formal quality-of-life analyses are yet to be reported.
 

What this means in practice

It is no surprise that enzalutamide, a potent drug in castration-resistant prostate cancer, would beat placebo. It joins docetaxel and abiraterone in helping to delay the time until castration-resistant disease develops – a meaningful goal. The authors commented that baseline PSA level did not predict benefit from enzalutamide – again, no surprise given that other published trials have suggested that baseline PSA is more likely prognostic than predictive.

It is always prudent to wait for a formal manuscript, but this abstract suggests that men with mHSPC have yet another option for treatment with modest toxicity and broad applicability in practice.
 

ctDNA in early colorectal cancer

In JAMA Oncology, Yuxuan Wang, MD, PhD, and colleagues summarized their experience with 58 patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) who had curative-intent surgical resection at four Swedish hospitals.

The patients had levels of ctDNA monitored every 3 months post operatively. Prediction of the development of metastatic disease using ctDNA was compared to conventional surveillance testing (carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA] blood tests and computed tomographic scanning) per guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Among the 45 patients with no elevation of ctDNA, there were no recurrences at median follow-up of 49 months. In contrast, 10 of 13 patients (77%) with elevated ctDNA levels during follow-up developed metastatic disease. CEA levels were less sensitive, detecting just 63% of recurrences.

Among the three patients with false positive ctDNA levels, all three fell to undetectable levels with continued follow-up. One of the 18 patients who received adjuvant post-operative chemotherapy had the ctDNA levels fall to undetectable with chemotherapy and that patient remained relapse-free at 37 months.

What this means in practice

The results of this study are remarkably concordant with recently published work in the Journal of Clinical Oncology by Emil Christensen, PhD, and colleagues, that involved patients with localized bladder cancer and illustrate the predictive value of ctDNA over traditional risk factors and conventional surveillance monitoring.

Monitoring ctDNA remains a promising research tool that should not be used for clinical decision making at the present time. However, its potential to help us personalize treatment selection, surveillance intensity, and to select patients who may be spared costly, toxic, and anxiety-provoking treatment and monitoring could be practice changing in the near future.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials – a late-breaking abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association on the value of enzalutamide in hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC) patients and a recent publication in JAMA Oncology about the potential for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing to inform our management of early stage colorectal cancer (CRC).

ARCHES trial

The ARCHES trial was reported as a late-breaking abstract at AUA 2019. ARCHES was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 1,150 men with mHSPC. Patients were required to have been free from radiographic disease progression or a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level for at least 3 months on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or at least 6 months after prior docetaxel chemotherapy.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ADT plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor) or ADT plus placebo. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and death within 24 weeks.

ADT plus enzalutamide had dramatically better PSA-related endpoints (as expected) and produced significantly better rPFS (median PFS, not reached versus 19.5 months; 61% relative prolongation of rPFS) than placebo plus ADT.

Overall survival data were unreported and may be confounded by all patients being offered enzalutamide at progression. Despite the known adverse effects of enzalutamide from prior studies, enzalutamide-related adverse effects in ARCHES were no worse than placebo (about 85% in both study arms). Formal quality-of-life analyses are yet to be reported.
 

What this means in practice

It is no surprise that enzalutamide, a potent drug in castration-resistant prostate cancer, would beat placebo. It joins docetaxel and abiraterone in helping to delay the time until castration-resistant disease develops – a meaningful goal. The authors commented that baseline PSA level did not predict benefit from enzalutamide – again, no surprise given that other published trials have suggested that baseline PSA is more likely prognostic than predictive.

It is always prudent to wait for a formal manuscript, but this abstract suggests that men with mHSPC have yet another option for treatment with modest toxicity and broad applicability in practice.
 

ctDNA in early colorectal cancer

In JAMA Oncology, Yuxuan Wang, MD, PhD, and colleagues summarized their experience with 58 patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) who had curative-intent surgical resection at four Swedish hospitals.

The patients had levels of ctDNA monitored every 3 months post operatively. Prediction of the development of metastatic disease using ctDNA was compared to conventional surveillance testing (carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA] blood tests and computed tomographic scanning) per guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Among the 45 patients with no elevation of ctDNA, there were no recurrences at median follow-up of 49 months. In contrast, 10 of 13 patients (77%) with elevated ctDNA levels during follow-up developed metastatic disease. CEA levels were less sensitive, detecting just 63% of recurrences.

Among the three patients with false positive ctDNA levels, all three fell to undetectable levels with continued follow-up. One of the 18 patients who received adjuvant post-operative chemotherapy had the ctDNA levels fall to undetectable with chemotherapy and that patient remained relapse-free at 37 months.

What this means in practice

The results of this study are remarkably concordant with recently published work in the Journal of Clinical Oncology by Emil Christensen, PhD, and colleagues, that involved patients with localized bladder cancer and illustrate the predictive value of ctDNA over traditional risk factors and conventional surveillance monitoring.

Monitoring ctDNA remains a promising research tool that should not be used for clinical decision making at the present time. However, its potential to help us personalize treatment selection, surveillance intensity, and to select patients who may be spared costly, toxic, and anxiety-provoking treatment and monitoring could be practice changing in the near future.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials – a late-breaking abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association on the value of enzalutamide in hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC) patients and a recent publication in JAMA Oncology about the potential for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing to inform our management of early stage colorectal cancer (CRC).

ARCHES trial

The ARCHES trial was reported as a late-breaking abstract at AUA 2019. ARCHES was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 1,150 men with mHSPC. Patients were required to have been free from radiographic disease progression or a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level for at least 3 months on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or at least 6 months after prior docetaxel chemotherapy.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ADT plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor) or ADT plus placebo. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and death within 24 weeks.

ADT plus enzalutamide had dramatically better PSA-related endpoints (as expected) and produced significantly better rPFS (median PFS, not reached versus 19.5 months; 61% relative prolongation of rPFS) than placebo plus ADT.

Overall survival data were unreported and may be confounded by all patients being offered enzalutamide at progression. Despite the known adverse effects of enzalutamide from prior studies, enzalutamide-related adverse effects in ARCHES were no worse than placebo (about 85% in both study arms). Formal quality-of-life analyses are yet to be reported.
 

What this means in practice

It is no surprise that enzalutamide, a potent drug in castration-resistant prostate cancer, would beat placebo. It joins docetaxel and abiraterone in helping to delay the time until castration-resistant disease develops – a meaningful goal. The authors commented that baseline PSA level did not predict benefit from enzalutamide – again, no surprise given that other published trials have suggested that baseline PSA is more likely prognostic than predictive.

It is always prudent to wait for a formal manuscript, but this abstract suggests that men with mHSPC have yet another option for treatment with modest toxicity and broad applicability in practice.
 

ctDNA in early colorectal cancer

In JAMA Oncology, Yuxuan Wang, MD, PhD, and colleagues summarized their experience with 58 patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) who had curative-intent surgical resection at four Swedish hospitals.

The patients had levels of ctDNA monitored every 3 months post operatively. Prediction of the development of metastatic disease using ctDNA was compared to conventional surveillance testing (carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA] blood tests and computed tomographic scanning) per guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Among the 45 patients with no elevation of ctDNA, there were no recurrences at median follow-up of 49 months. In contrast, 10 of 13 patients (77%) with elevated ctDNA levels during follow-up developed metastatic disease. CEA levels were less sensitive, detecting just 63% of recurrences.

Among the three patients with false positive ctDNA levels, all three fell to undetectable levels with continued follow-up. One of the 18 patients who received adjuvant post-operative chemotherapy had the ctDNA levels fall to undetectable with chemotherapy and that patient remained relapse-free at 37 months.

What this means in practice

The results of this study are remarkably concordant with recently published work in the Journal of Clinical Oncology by Emil Christensen, PhD, and colleagues, that involved patients with localized bladder cancer and illustrate the predictive value of ctDNA over traditional risk factors and conventional surveillance monitoring.

Monitoring ctDNA remains a promising research tool that should not be used for clinical decision making at the present time. However, its potential to help us personalize treatment selection, surveillance intensity, and to select patients who may be spared costly, toxic, and anxiety-provoking treatment and monitoring could be practice changing in the near future.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials – one summarizes a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress on the value of durvalumab as adjuvant treatment in patients with locally-advanced non–small cell lung cancer and the other confirms the safety and efficacy of subcutaneously-administered trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment in HER2/-positive breast cancer patients.

PACIFIC trial

In the PACIFIC trial, 713 patients with unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received concurrent chemoradiation were randomized to receive adjuvant durvalumab or an identical placebo, for a year after radiation ended. The results were dramatic in favor of durvalumab (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2342-50).

Durvalumab showed 24-month overall survival of 66.3% versus 55.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.68, P = .0025) and progression-free survival of 17.2 months versus 5. 6 months (HR, 0.51). As expected, there were more grade 3-4 toxicities and treatment discontinuations with durvalumab than with placebo, but the toxicity seemed modest, given the substantial improvements in tumor-related outcomes.

At the recent European Lung Cancer Congress, Marina Garassino, MD, reported on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) in PACIFIC. PROs were analyzed by PD-L1 level. A total of 63% of patients had PD-L1 tumor expression data for analysis. Overall, there were no major differences in PROs by PD-L1. Global quality of life did not differ by PD-L1 expression cohort.



These data support adjuvant durvalumab for stage III, chemoradiation-treated NSCLC patients, not only from efficacy and toxicity viewpoints, but also from the standpoint of the patient experience, independent of PD-L1 tumor expression.
 

What this means in practice

From every relevant perspective, regardless of histology and molecular features associated with their particular tumor, it is worthwhile for us to recommend – and for our patients to receive – durvalumab adjuvant therapy for up to 1 year after radiation ends, with close follow-up and adherence to the criteria for treatment modification or discontinuation as performed in the PACIFIC trial. These new data remove any lingering concerns about the value of this life-prolonging treatment.

Subcutaneous vs. IV trastuzumab

In this international phase 3 trial in early breast cancer patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was paired with either standard IV trastuzumab or subcutaneous trastuzumab at intervals of every 3 weeks. After the cytotoxic chemotherapy concluded, patients completed a 12-month course of trastuzumab with either the IV or subcutaneous administration, as previously randomized. The 6-year event-free survival and overall survival were 65% and 84%, respectively, for both the IV and subcutaneous treatment administration.

The authors concluded that these results are relevant to patients with low-risk HER2-positive breast cancer patients, for whom T-DM1 is not needed (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0339).

What this means in practice

These long-term data from the HannaH trial show persuasively that patients should be offered the more convenient, hopefully cheaper, subcutaneous route of administration. Since relapses beyond year 6 are unlikely, these data are unlikely to change with further follow-up. At our hospital, we recently made the decision to add subcutaneous trastuzumab to our formulary.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials – one summarizes a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress on the value of durvalumab as adjuvant treatment in patients with locally-advanced non–small cell lung cancer and the other confirms the safety and efficacy of subcutaneously-administered trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment in HER2/-positive breast cancer patients.

PACIFIC trial

In the PACIFIC trial, 713 patients with unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received concurrent chemoradiation were randomized to receive adjuvant durvalumab or an identical placebo, for a year after radiation ended. The results were dramatic in favor of durvalumab (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2342-50).

Durvalumab showed 24-month overall survival of 66.3% versus 55.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.68, P = .0025) and progression-free survival of 17.2 months versus 5. 6 months (HR, 0.51). As expected, there were more grade 3-4 toxicities and treatment discontinuations with durvalumab than with placebo, but the toxicity seemed modest, given the substantial improvements in tumor-related outcomes.

At the recent European Lung Cancer Congress, Marina Garassino, MD, reported on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) in PACIFIC. PROs were analyzed by PD-L1 level. A total of 63% of patients had PD-L1 tumor expression data for analysis. Overall, there were no major differences in PROs by PD-L1. Global quality of life did not differ by PD-L1 expression cohort.



These data support adjuvant durvalumab for stage III, chemoradiation-treated NSCLC patients, not only from efficacy and toxicity viewpoints, but also from the standpoint of the patient experience, independent of PD-L1 tumor expression.
 

What this means in practice

From every relevant perspective, regardless of histology and molecular features associated with their particular tumor, it is worthwhile for us to recommend – and for our patients to receive – durvalumab adjuvant therapy for up to 1 year after radiation ends, with close follow-up and adherence to the criteria for treatment modification or discontinuation as performed in the PACIFIC trial. These new data remove any lingering concerns about the value of this life-prolonging treatment.

Subcutaneous vs. IV trastuzumab

In this international phase 3 trial in early breast cancer patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was paired with either standard IV trastuzumab or subcutaneous trastuzumab at intervals of every 3 weeks. After the cytotoxic chemotherapy concluded, patients completed a 12-month course of trastuzumab with either the IV or subcutaneous administration, as previously randomized. The 6-year event-free survival and overall survival were 65% and 84%, respectively, for both the IV and subcutaneous treatment administration.

The authors concluded that these results are relevant to patients with low-risk HER2-positive breast cancer patients, for whom T-DM1 is not needed (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0339).

What this means in practice

These long-term data from the HannaH trial show persuasively that patients should be offered the more convenient, hopefully cheaper, subcutaneous route of administration. Since relapses beyond year 6 are unlikely, these data are unlikely to change with further follow-up. At our hospital, we recently made the decision to add subcutaneous trastuzumab to our formulary.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials – one summarizes a presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress on the value of durvalumab as adjuvant treatment in patients with locally-advanced non–small cell lung cancer and the other confirms the safety and efficacy of subcutaneously-administered trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment in HER2/-positive breast cancer patients.

PACIFIC trial

In the PACIFIC trial, 713 patients with unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received concurrent chemoradiation were randomized to receive adjuvant durvalumab or an identical placebo, for a year after radiation ended. The results were dramatic in favor of durvalumab (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2342-50).

Durvalumab showed 24-month overall survival of 66.3% versus 55.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.68, P = .0025) and progression-free survival of 17.2 months versus 5. 6 months (HR, 0.51). As expected, there were more grade 3-4 toxicities and treatment discontinuations with durvalumab than with placebo, but the toxicity seemed modest, given the substantial improvements in tumor-related outcomes.

At the recent European Lung Cancer Congress, Marina Garassino, MD, reported on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) in PACIFIC. PROs were analyzed by PD-L1 level. A total of 63% of patients had PD-L1 tumor expression data for analysis. Overall, there were no major differences in PROs by PD-L1. Global quality of life did not differ by PD-L1 expression cohort.



These data support adjuvant durvalumab for stage III, chemoradiation-treated NSCLC patients, not only from efficacy and toxicity viewpoints, but also from the standpoint of the patient experience, independent of PD-L1 tumor expression.
 

What this means in practice

From every relevant perspective, regardless of histology and molecular features associated with their particular tumor, it is worthwhile for us to recommend – and for our patients to receive – durvalumab adjuvant therapy for up to 1 year after radiation ends, with close follow-up and adherence to the criteria for treatment modification or discontinuation as performed in the PACIFIC trial. These new data remove any lingering concerns about the value of this life-prolonging treatment.

Subcutaneous vs. IV trastuzumab

In this international phase 3 trial in early breast cancer patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was paired with either standard IV trastuzumab or subcutaneous trastuzumab at intervals of every 3 weeks. After the cytotoxic chemotherapy concluded, patients completed a 12-month course of trastuzumab with either the IV or subcutaneous administration, as previously randomized. The 6-year event-free survival and overall survival were 65% and 84%, respectively, for both the IV and subcutaneous treatment administration.

The authors concluded that these results are relevant to patients with low-risk HER2-positive breast cancer patients, for whom T-DM1 is not needed (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0339).

What this means in practice

These long-term data from the HannaH trial show persuasively that patients should be offered the more convenient, hopefully cheaper, subcutaneous route of administration. Since relapses beyond year 6 are unlikely, these data are unlikely to change with further follow-up. At our hospital, we recently made the decision to add subcutaneous trastuzumab to our formulary.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials – one offers potential in previously-treated cervical cancer patients with poor prognosis and the other confirms the role of R-CHOP as the standard of care in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-158

In an international phase 2 “basket trial,” Hyun Cheol Chung, MD, PhD, and colleagues used pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks in 98 previously treated patients with advanced cervical cancer. Almost 84% of o the patients had PD-L1 positive tumors (greater than 1%). The authors said that viral induction of malignancy leads to antigen production and upregulation of PD-1. Therefore, advanced cervical cancer patients would likely express PD-L1 on tumor cells and respond to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

In this interim report, there were 12 responses (all in PD-L1 positive patients), with three complete responses. Median response duration had not been reached at median follow-up of 10.2 months. Seven of 12 responses were ongoing at 12 months. There were grade 3-4 adverse events in 12.2% of patients and no treatment-related deaths.

The study – “Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab in Previously Treated Advanced Cervical Cancer: Results From the Phase II KEYNOTE-158 Study” – was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2019 April 3. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01265).


The encouraging results of pembrolizumab in this generally chemotherapy-refractory patient population were consistent with other small, early-phase studies investigating immune checkpoint inhibitors that led to the accelerated approval of pembrolizumab in previously treated PD-L1 advanced cervical cancer patients with progressive disease after chemotherapy.
 

What this means in practice

Although excitement should be tempered about an interim report of an organ-specific subset of a phase 2 international basket trial that was heavily populated by young PS 0-1 patients and generated an overall response rate of less than 15%, no conventional chemotherapy or biologic agent offers the potential of complete or prolonged response, and disease control rates of 30%.

Clinical trials should always be the first choice, but immune checkpoint inhibitors offer an attractive off-study option.

Among many single agents in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for recurrent advanced cervical cancer after first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy, there is a reason why pembrolizumab is listed first. For patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors or MSI-H/dMMR tumors, I would use it.
 

Frontline therapy in DLBCL

In a large, randomized phase 3 trial, close to 500 stage III-IV patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma and intravascular large B-cell lymphoma, were assigned to receive either conventional R-CHOP chemotherapy or the more complex, more toxic DA-EPOCH-R regimen that appeared superior in single-institution studies and was feasible in multi-institutional phase 2 trials.

The study – “Dose-Adjusted EPOCH-R Compared With R-CHOP as Frontline Therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Clinical Outcomes of the Phase III Intergroup Trial Alliance/CALGB 50303” – was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2019 Apr 2. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01994).

In the study, progression-free survival and overall survival were no different for R-CHOP and DA-EPOCH-R, but – predictably – DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and had more treatment discontinuations.

R-CHOP had better outcomes than expected. This suggests that patient-selection bias (more favorable histology, fewer high-risk subsets who required urgent therapy) may have been at work.

Further study of DA-EPOCH-R in higher IPI patients or in patients selected because of more adverse molecular features (DE phenotype, MYC+, double hit) is warranted given the poor outcomes with R-CHOP in high-risk patients, intriguing results in single institution trials of DA-EPOCH-R, and the underrepresentation of high-risk patients in the current study.
 

What this means in practice

Whether by virtue of the types of patients enrolled or because it is the best regimen in all DLBCL patients, R-CHOP remains the standard of care outside of a clinical trial.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials – one offers potential in previously-treated cervical cancer patients with poor prognosis and the other confirms the role of R-CHOP as the standard of care in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-158

In an international phase 2 “basket trial,” Hyun Cheol Chung, MD, PhD, and colleagues used pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks in 98 previously treated patients with advanced cervical cancer. Almost 84% of o the patients had PD-L1 positive tumors (greater than 1%). The authors said that viral induction of malignancy leads to antigen production and upregulation of PD-1. Therefore, advanced cervical cancer patients would likely express PD-L1 on tumor cells and respond to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

In this interim report, there were 12 responses (all in PD-L1 positive patients), with three complete responses. Median response duration had not been reached at median follow-up of 10.2 months. Seven of 12 responses were ongoing at 12 months. There were grade 3-4 adverse events in 12.2% of patients and no treatment-related deaths.

The study – “Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab in Previously Treated Advanced Cervical Cancer: Results From the Phase II KEYNOTE-158 Study” – was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2019 April 3. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01265).


The encouraging results of pembrolizumab in this generally chemotherapy-refractory patient population were consistent with other small, early-phase studies investigating immune checkpoint inhibitors that led to the accelerated approval of pembrolizumab in previously treated PD-L1 advanced cervical cancer patients with progressive disease after chemotherapy.
 

What this means in practice

Although excitement should be tempered about an interim report of an organ-specific subset of a phase 2 international basket trial that was heavily populated by young PS 0-1 patients and generated an overall response rate of less than 15%, no conventional chemotherapy or biologic agent offers the potential of complete or prolonged response, and disease control rates of 30%.

Clinical trials should always be the first choice, but immune checkpoint inhibitors offer an attractive off-study option.

Among many single agents in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for recurrent advanced cervical cancer after first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy, there is a reason why pembrolizumab is listed first. For patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors or MSI-H/dMMR tumors, I would use it.
 

Frontline therapy in DLBCL

In a large, randomized phase 3 trial, close to 500 stage III-IV patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma and intravascular large B-cell lymphoma, were assigned to receive either conventional R-CHOP chemotherapy or the more complex, more toxic DA-EPOCH-R regimen that appeared superior in single-institution studies and was feasible in multi-institutional phase 2 trials.

The study – “Dose-Adjusted EPOCH-R Compared With R-CHOP as Frontline Therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Clinical Outcomes of the Phase III Intergroup Trial Alliance/CALGB 50303” – was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2019 Apr 2. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01994).

In the study, progression-free survival and overall survival were no different for R-CHOP and DA-EPOCH-R, but – predictably – DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and had more treatment discontinuations.

R-CHOP had better outcomes than expected. This suggests that patient-selection bias (more favorable histology, fewer high-risk subsets who required urgent therapy) may have been at work.

Further study of DA-EPOCH-R in higher IPI patients or in patients selected because of more adverse molecular features (DE phenotype, MYC+, double hit) is warranted given the poor outcomes with R-CHOP in high-risk patients, intriguing results in single institution trials of DA-EPOCH-R, and the underrepresentation of high-risk patients in the current study.
 

What this means in practice

Whether by virtue of the types of patients enrolled or because it is the best regimen in all DLBCL patients, R-CHOP remains the standard of care outside of a clinical trial.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two recent trials – one offers potential in previously-treated cervical cancer patients with poor prognosis and the other confirms the role of R-CHOP as the standard of care in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-158

In an international phase 2 “basket trial,” Hyun Cheol Chung, MD, PhD, and colleagues used pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks in 98 previously treated patients with advanced cervical cancer. Almost 84% of o the patients had PD-L1 positive tumors (greater than 1%). The authors said that viral induction of malignancy leads to antigen production and upregulation of PD-1. Therefore, advanced cervical cancer patients would likely express PD-L1 on tumor cells and respond to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

In this interim report, there were 12 responses (all in PD-L1 positive patients), with three complete responses. Median response duration had not been reached at median follow-up of 10.2 months. Seven of 12 responses were ongoing at 12 months. There were grade 3-4 adverse events in 12.2% of patients and no treatment-related deaths.

The study – “Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab in Previously Treated Advanced Cervical Cancer: Results From the Phase II KEYNOTE-158 Study” – was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2019 April 3. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01265).


The encouraging results of pembrolizumab in this generally chemotherapy-refractory patient population were consistent with other small, early-phase studies investigating immune checkpoint inhibitors that led to the accelerated approval of pembrolizumab in previously treated PD-L1 advanced cervical cancer patients with progressive disease after chemotherapy.
 

What this means in practice

Although excitement should be tempered about an interim report of an organ-specific subset of a phase 2 international basket trial that was heavily populated by young PS 0-1 patients and generated an overall response rate of less than 15%, no conventional chemotherapy or biologic agent offers the potential of complete or prolonged response, and disease control rates of 30%.

Clinical trials should always be the first choice, but immune checkpoint inhibitors offer an attractive off-study option.

Among many single agents in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for recurrent advanced cervical cancer after first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy, there is a reason why pembrolizumab is listed first. For patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors or MSI-H/dMMR tumors, I would use it.
 

Frontline therapy in DLBCL

In a large, randomized phase 3 trial, close to 500 stage III-IV patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma and intravascular large B-cell lymphoma, were assigned to receive either conventional R-CHOP chemotherapy or the more complex, more toxic DA-EPOCH-R regimen that appeared superior in single-institution studies and was feasible in multi-institutional phase 2 trials.

The study – “Dose-Adjusted EPOCH-R Compared With R-CHOP as Frontline Therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Clinical Outcomes of the Phase III Intergroup Trial Alliance/CALGB 50303” – was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2019 Apr 2. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01994).

In the study, progression-free survival and overall survival were no different for R-CHOP and DA-EPOCH-R, but – predictably – DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and had more treatment discontinuations.

R-CHOP had better outcomes than expected. This suggests that patient-selection bias (more favorable histology, fewer high-risk subsets who required urgent therapy) may have been at work.

Further study of DA-EPOCH-R in higher IPI patients or in patients selected because of more adverse molecular features (DE phenotype, MYC+, double hit) is warranted given the poor outcomes with R-CHOP in high-risk patients, intriguing results in single institution trials of DA-EPOCH-R, and the underrepresentation of high-risk patients in the current study.
 

What this means in practice

Whether by virtue of the types of patients enrolled or because it is the best regimen in all DLBCL patients, R-CHOP remains the standard of care outside of a clinical trial.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

Welcome to the first edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” a regular column analyzing the practical clinical relevance of the latest literature. In this first column, I will take a look at two interesting studies – a combination hormonal treatment for metastatic ER-positive breast cancer and aspirin therapy for prevention of hepatocellular cancer.

Anastrozole plus fulvestrant

In a large SWOG trial for postmenopausal patients with stage IV, hormonally responsive breast cancer whose metastatic disease could be treated with frontline hormonal therapy, long-term survival analysis showed that the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant was superior to anastrozole alone, with essentially no increase in toxicity.

The study – “Overall Survival With Fulvestrant Plus Anastrozole in Metastatic Breast Cancer” – was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;380:1226-34).

The overall survival difference was not only statistically and clinically significant, but impressively so among patients who had not received prior adjuvant hormonal therapy. That is despite the fact that 45% of patients who were assigned to initial treatment with anastrozole received single agent fulvestrant at first relapse.

What this means in practice

Because of the generally negative results of combined hormonal therapy in comparison with sequential use of the same agents and the potency of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with hormonal agents in the frontline setting, many oncologists have forgotten the initial publication of this regimen in 2012. In that study, the combination demonstrated improved progression-free survival over anastrozole alone, particularly in the subset of patients who presented with stage IV breast cancer as their initial presentation.

Although the benefits for CDK4/6 inhibitors as an addition to hormonal therapy are truly impressive, the practical aspects of utilizing the CDK4/6 inhibitors may be prohibitive for a small subset of our most vulnerable, medically underserved patients. Specifically, these are patients who are unable to return for frequent blood counts in the initial few months of therapy, patients with limited financial resources who cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs of an expensive oral medication and required laboratory testing, those with difficulty adhering to oral medication regimens, or those with constitutional neutropenia.

Not coincidentally, many of these patients are exactly the ones who present with stage IV disease as their initial manifestation of breast cancer. For such patients, the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant is an attractive alternative and may offer competitive survival benefits. This is not “yesterday’s therapy” in the era of CDK4/6 inhibitors, but rather represents a valuable option for treatment in at-risk populations.

When I see my next patient who presents with stage IV breast cancer, I will consider combined hormonal therapy among the various available treatment options.

Aspirin to prevent HCC

Investigators at Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital recently analyzed 16 years of data from a cohort of more than 10,000 patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and found statistically significantly fewer cases of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in patients who took antiviral antinucleoside analogue therapy, statins, and aspirin.

The study – “Association of Daily Aspirin Therapy With Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B” – was published in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8342).

Although there were more impressive reductions in relative risk of HCC among statin and antinucleoside analogue users, the authors highlighted that HCC developed in 5.20% of the approximately 2,100 chronic aspirin users and in 7.87% of nonusers – a 29% relative reduction in risk in this cohort study. Toxicity, including upper GI bleeding, was low.

What this means in practice

This is a hypothesis-generating analysis at best. Although the authors highlight possible mechanisms by which aspirin use could lead to reduction in HCC among patients with chronic inflammatory conditions affecting the liver, the study produces more questions than it answers (dose, chronicity of use, duration of protection, biomarkers for benefit).

Owing to the simplicity and low cost of the intervention, it may be worth studying prospectively in chronic HBV-infected patients and other populations at risk for HCC, but the intervention should not be adopted at this point based on an international cohort study.

The practicality of conducting such a large, complicated, prospective study of a widely available medication that has widely publicized additional health benefits is an open question.

When I see my next patient with a high risk for HCC, I won’t prescribe aspirin for chemoprevention.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

Welcome to the first edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” a regular column analyzing the practical clinical relevance of the latest literature. In this first column, I will take a look at two interesting studies – a combination hormonal treatment for metastatic ER-positive breast cancer and aspirin therapy for prevention of hepatocellular cancer.

Anastrozole plus fulvestrant

In a large SWOG trial for postmenopausal patients with stage IV, hormonally responsive breast cancer whose metastatic disease could be treated with frontline hormonal therapy, long-term survival analysis showed that the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant was superior to anastrozole alone, with essentially no increase in toxicity.

The study – “Overall Survival With Fulvestrant Plus Anastrozole in Metastatic Breast Cancer” – was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;380:1226-34).

The overall survival difference was not only statistically and clinically significant, but impressively so among patients who had not received prior adjuvant hormonal therapy. That is despite the fact that 45% of patients who were assigned to initial treatment with anastrozole received single agent fulvestrant at first relapse.

What this means in practice

Because of the generally negative results of combined hormonal therapy in comparison with sequential use of the same agents and the potency of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with hormonal agents in the frontline setting, many oncologists have forgotten the initial publication of this regimen in 2012. In that study, the combination demonstrated improved progression-free survival over anastrozole alone, particularly in the subset of patients who presented with stage IV breast cancer as their initial presentation.

Although the benefits for CDK4/6 inhibitors as an addition to hormonal therapy are truly impressive, the practical aspects of utilizing the CDK4/6 inhibitors may be prohibitive for a small subset of our most vulnerable, medically underserved patients. Specifically, these are patients who are unable to return for frequent blood counts in the initial few months of therapy, patients with limited financial resources who cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs of an expensive oral medication and required laboratory testing, those with difficulty adhering to oral medication regimens, or those with constitutional neutropenia.

Not coincidentally, many of these patients are exactly the ones who present with stage IV disease as their initial manifestation of breast cancer. For such patients, the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant is an attractive alternative and may offer competitive survival benefits. This is not “yesterday’s therapy” in the era of CDK4/6 inhibitors, but rather represents a valuable option for treatment in at-risk populations.

When I see my next patient who presents with stage IV breast cancer, I will consider combined hormonal therapy among the various available treatment options.

Aspirin to prevent HCC

Investigators at Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital recently analyzed 16 years of data from a cohort of more than 10,000 patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and found statistically significantly fewer cases of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in patients who took antiviral antinucleoside analogue therapy, statins, and aspirin.

The study – “Association of Daily Aspirin Therapy With Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B” – was published in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8342).

Although there were more impressive reductions in relative risk of HCC among statin and antinucleoside analogue users, the authors highlighted that HCC developed in 5.20% of the approximately 2,100 chronic aspirin users and in 7.87% of nonusers – a 29% relative reduction in risk in this cohort study. Toxicity, including upper GI bleeding, was low.

What this means in practice

This is a hypothesis-generating analysis at best. Although the authors highlight possible mechanisms by which aspirin use could lead to reduction in HCC among patients with chronic inflammatory conditions affecting the liver, the study produces more questions than it answers (dose, chronicity of use, duration of protection, biomarkers for benefit).

Owing to the simplicity and low cost of the intervention, it may be worth studying prospectively in chronic HBV-infected patients and other populations at risk for HCC, but the intervention should not be adopted at this point based on an international cohort study.

The practicality of conducting such a large, complicated, prospective study of a widely available medication that has widely publicized additional health benefits is an open question.

When I see my next patient with a high risk for HCC, I won’t prescribe aspirin for chemoprevention.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

Welcome to the first edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” a regular column analyzing the practical clinical relevance of the latest literature. In this first column, I will take a look at two interesting studies – a combination hormonal treatment for metastatic ER-positive breast cancer and aspirin therapy for prevention of hepatocellular cancer.

Anastrozole plus fulvestrant

In a large SWOG trial for postmenopausal patients with stage IV, hormonally responsive breast cancer whose metastatic disease could be treated with frontline hormonal therapy, long-term survival analysis showed that the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant was superior to anastrozole alone, with essentially no increase in toxicity.

The study – “Overall Survival With Fulvestrant Plus Anastrozole in Metastatic Breast Cancer” – was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;380:1226-34).

The overall survival difference was not only statistically and clinically significant, but impressively so among patients who had not received prior adjuvant hormonal therapy. That is despite the fact that 45% of patients who were assigned to initial treatment with anastrozole received single agent fulvestrant at first relapse.

What this means in practice

Because of the generally negative results of combined hormonal therapy in comparison with sequential use of the same agents and the potency of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with hormonal agents in the frontline setting, many oncologists have forgotten the initial publication of this regimen in 2012. In that study, the combination demonstrated improved progression-free survival over anastrozole alone, particularly in the subset of patients who presented with stage IV breast cancer as their initial presentation.

Although the benefits for CDK4/6 inhibitors as an addition to hormonal therapy are truly impressive, the practical aspects of utilizing the CDK4/6 inhibitors may be prohibitive for a small subset of our most vulnerable, medically underserved patients. Specifically, these are patients who are unable to return for frequent blood counts in the initial few months of therapy, patients with limited financial resources who cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs of an expensive oral medication and required laboratory testing, those with difficulty adhering to oral medication regimens, or those with constitutional neutropenia.

Not coincidentally, many of these patients are exactly the ones who present with stage IV disease as their initial manifestation of breast cancer. For such patients, the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant is an attractive alternative and may offer competitive survival benefits. This is not “yesterday’s therapy” in the era of CDK4/6 inhibitors, but rather represents a valuable option for treatment in at-risk populations.

When I see my next patient who presents with stage IV breast cancer, I will consider combined hormonal therapy among the various available treatment options.

Aspirin to prevent HCC

Investigators at Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital recently analyzed 16 years of data from a cohort of more than 10,000 patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and found statistically significantly fewer cases of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in patients who took antiviral antinucleoside analogue therapy, statins, and aspirin.

The study – “Association of Daily Aspirin Therapy With Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B” – was published in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8342).

Although there were more impressive reductions in relative risk of HCC among statin and antinucleoside analogue users, the authors highlighted that HCC developed in 5.20% of the approximately 2,100 chronic aspirin users and in 7.87% of nonusers – a 29% relative reduction in risk in this cohort study. Toxicity, including upper GI bleeding, was low.

What this means in practice

This is a hypothesis-generating analysis at best. Although the authors highlight possible mechanisms by which aspirin use could lead to reduction in HCC among patients with chronic inflammatory conditions affecting the liver, the study produces more questions than it answers (dose, chronicity of use, duration of protection, biomarkers for benefit).

Owing to the simplicity and low cost of the intervention, it may be worth studying prospectively in chronic HBV-infected patients and other populations at risk for HCC, but the intervention should not be adopted at this point based on an international cohort study.

The practicality of conducting such a large, complicated, prospective study of a widely available medication that has widely publicized additional health benefits is an open question.

When I see my next patient with a high risk for HCC, I won’t prescribe aspirin for chemoprevention.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.