User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
Niraparib maintenance offers continued benefit in some with recurrent ovarian cancer
The final analysis showed a significant difference in second progression-free survival (PFS2) with niraparib versus placebo, but only in patients with germline BRCA mutations.
The overall survival analysis was limited because the study was not powered to detect differences in OS. Still, the investigators found a trend toward better OS with niraparib in patients who had germline BRCA mutations.
These results were presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11139).
The final analysis of this study was muddied by missing data for many of the 553 patients originally randomized, according to Ursula Matulonis, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who presented the study’s results at the meeting.
“Since 2014, approvals of PARP [poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase] inhibitors worldwide in different lines of ovarian cancer therapy have revolutionized the treatment of women with ovarian cancer,” Dr. Matulonis said. “During the time from the initial results of the NOVA study in 2016 to this final analysis, PARP inhibitors have become available commercially globally.”
The wider availability of PARP inhibitors led to premature unblinding and withdrawals from the trial, resulting in missing data for a large proportion of patients.
Initial results
In the primary analysis of the trial, the median PFS was 21 months among patients with germline BRCA mutations who received niraparib and 5.5 months for patients with germline BRCA mutations who received placebo (P < .001).
Among patients with no germline BRCA mutations, the median PFS was 9.3 months for those who received niraparib and 3.9 months for placebo-treated controls (P < .001).
At the time of the primary PFS analysis in 2016, 155 of the 553 patients originally enrolled had left the study for reasons other than death.
In both treatment cohorts, a large number of patients were unblinded as to their treatment assignments by investigators, which required them to withdraw consent from the study under the protocol, resulting in the aforementioned loss of some data on subsequent therapy and survival status.
Final results: PFS2 and OS
At the time of the final data lock on Oct. 1, 2020, the mean follow-up was 67 months (5.6 years).
In all, 64 patients originally assigned to niraparib were still on study (28 in the germline BRCA mutation cohort and 36 in the nonmutated cohort), as were 28 patients originally assigned to placebo (9 and 19, respectively).
For the final analysis, the investigators were able to retrieve survival data on 51% of the patients originally enrolled, either through protocol amendments and obtaining consent again or through national databases.
Although crossover to the niraparib arm was not allowed on study, patients could receive a PARP inhibitor following disease progression or study withdrawal. Because of discontinuations, data on postprogression therapy were missing for 138 of the 553 patients (25%).
The hazard ratio for PFS2 with niraparib versus placebo was 0.67 for patients with germline BRCA mutations (95% confidence interval, 0.479-0.948) and 0.81 for patients without the mutations (95% CI, 0.632-1.050).
In an analysis adjusted for subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy, there was no significant difference in median OS between the niraparib and placebo arms, regardless of mutation status. In the cohort without BRCA mutations, the median OS was 31.3 months with niraparib and 35.9 months with placebo (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.74-1.26).
However, there was a trend toward improved OS with niraparib among patients with germline BRCA mutations. The median OS was 43.8 months with niraparib and 34.1 months with placebo (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99).
Safety: MDS/AML
Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events occurred primarily in the first year of niraparib treatment. The incidence of grade 3 or greater thrombocytopenia decreased from 33.8% at 1 year to 2.8% in years 2-3. The incidence of anemia decreased from 25.6% to 0.7%, and the neutropenia incidence decreased from 19.3% to 2.1%.
At last follow-up, 13 patients in the niraparib arm (3.5%) and 3 in the placebo arm (1.7%) had developed myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
The incidence of MDS/AML was 6.6% among patients with germline BRCA mutations who received niraparib, noted invited discussant Deborah K. Armstrong, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore.
That incidence was nearly as high as the 8% incidence of MDS/AML seen among similar patients in the SOLO-2 trial of olaparib maintenance, she noted.
This observation raises the question “of whether more extensive prior therapy or the longer duration of PARP inhibitor therapy in patients who have recurrent platinum-sensitive disease is the biggest contributor to that,” she said.
Dr. Armstrong commented that it remains to be seen whether the incidence of MDS/AML will increase with longer follow-up, particularly among patients who were more heavily pretreated with chemotherapy prior to PARP inhibitor maintenance, and in patients who remain on a PARP inhibitor until progression in ongoing trials of PARP inhibitors as frontline therapy.
The ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Matulonis reported consulting/advisory fees from Merck, Novartis, and NextCure. Dr. Armstrong disclosed relationships with several companies, not including GlaxoSmithKline.
The final analysis showed a significant difference in second progression-free survival (PFS2) with niraparib versus placebo, but only in patients with germline BRCA mutations.
The overall survival analysis was limited because the study was not powered to detect differences in OS. Still, the investigators found a trend toward better OS with niraparib in patients who had germline BRCA mutations.
These results were presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11139).
The final analysis of this study was muddied by missing data for many of the 553 patients originally randomized, according to Ursula Matulonis, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who presented the study’s results at the meeting.
“Since 2014, approvals of PARP [poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase] inhibitors worldwide in different lines of ovarian cancer therapy have revolutionized the treatment of women with ovarian cancer,” Dr. Matulonis said. “During the time from the initial results of the NOVA study in 2016 to this final analysis, PARP inhibitors have become available commercially globally.”
The wider availability of PARP inhibitors led to premature unblinding and withdrawals from the trial, resulting in missing data for a large proportion of patients.
Initial results
In the primary analysis of the trial, the median PFS was 21 months among patients with germline BRCA mutations who received niraparib and 5.5 months for patients with germline BRCA mutations who received placebo (P < .001).
Among patients with no germline BRCA mutations, the median PFS was 9.3 months for those who received niraparib and 3.9 months for placebo-treated controls (P < .001).
At the time of the primary PFS analysis in 2016, 155 of the 553 patients originally enrolled had left the study for reasons other than death.
In both treatment cohorts, a large number of patients were unblinded as to their treatment assignments by investigators, which required them to withdraw consent from the study under the protocol, resulting in the aforementioned loss of some data on subsequent therapy and survival status.
Final results: PFS2 and OS
At the time of the final data lock on Oct. 1, 2020, the mean follow-up was 67 months (5.6 years).
In all, 64 patients originally assigned to niraparib were still on study (28 in the germline BRCA mutation cohort and 36 in the nonmutated cohort), as were 28 patients originally assigned to placebo (9 and 19, respectively).
For the final analysis, the investigators were able to retrieve survival data on 51% of the patients originally enrolled, either through protocol amendments and obtaining consent again or through national databases.
Although crossover to the niraparib arm was not allowed on study, patients could receive a PARP inhibitor following disease progression or study withdrawal. Because of discontinuations, data on postprogression therapy were missing for 138 of the 553 patients (25%).
The hazard ratio for PFS2 with niraparib versus placebo was 0.67 for patients with germline BRCA mutations (95% confidence interval, 0.479-0.948) and 0.81 for patients without the mutations (95% CI, 0.632-1.050).
In an analysis adjusted for subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy, there was no significant difference in median OS between the niraparib and placebo arms, regardless of mutation status. In the cohort without BRCA mutations, the median OS was 31.3 months with niraparib and 35.9 months with placebo (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.74-1.26).
However, there was a trend toward improved OS with niraparib among patients with germline BRCA mutations. The median OS was 43.8 months with niraparib and 34.1 months with placebo (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99).
Safety: MDS/AML
Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events occurred primarily in the first year of niraparib treatment. The incidence of grade 3 or greater thrombocytopenia decreased from 33.8% at 1 year to 2.8% in years 2-3. The incidence of anemia decreased from 25.6% to 0.7%, and the neutropenia incidence decreased from 19.3% to 2.1%.
At last follow-up, 13 patients in the niraparib arm (3.5%) and 3 in the placebo arm (1.7%) had developed myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
The incidence of MDS/AML was 6.6% among patients with germline BRCA mutations who received niraparib, noted invited discussant Deborah K. Armstrong, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore.
That incidence was nearly as high as the 8% incidence of MDS/AML seen among similar patients in the SOLO-2 trial of olaparib maintenance, she noted.
This observation raises the question “of whether more extensive prior therapy or the longer duration of PARP inhibitor therapy in patients who have recurrent platinum-sensitive disease is the biggest contributor to that,” she said.
Dr. Armstrong commented that it remains to be seen whether the incidence of MDS/AML will increase with longer follow-up, particularly among patients who were more heavily pretreated with chemotherapy prior to PARP inhibitor maintenance, and in patients who remain on a PARP inhibitor until progression in ongoing trials of PARP inhibitors as frontline therapy.
The ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Matulonis reported consulting/advisory fees from Merck, Novartis, and NextCure. Dr. Armstrong disclosed relationships with several companies, not including GlaxoSmithKline.
The final analysis showed a significant difference in second progression-free survival (PFS2) with niraparib versus placebo, but only in patients with germline BRCA mutations.
The overall survival analysis was limited because the study was not powered to detect differences in OS. Still, the investigators found a trend toward better OS with niraparib in patients who had germline BRCA mutations.
These results were presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11139).
The final analysis of this study was muddied by missing data for many of the 553 patients originally randomized, according to Ursula Matulonis, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who presented the study’s results at the meeting.
“Since 2014, approvals of PARP [poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase] inhibitors worldwide in different lines of ovarian cancer therapy have revolutionized the treatment of women with ovarian cancer,” Dr. Matulonis said. “During the time from the initial results of the NOVA study in 2016 to this final analysis, PARP inhibitors have become available commercially globally.”
The wider availability of PARP inhibitors led to premature unblinding and withdrawals from the trial, resulting in missing data for a large proportion of patients.
Initial results
In the primary analysis of the trial, the median PFS was 21 months among patients with germline BRCA mutations who received niraparib and 5.5 months for patients with germline BRCA mutations who received placebo (P < .001).
Among patients with no germline BRCA mutations, the median PFS was 9.3 months for those who received niraparib and 3.9 months for placebo-treated controls (P < .001).
At the time of the primary PFS analysis in 2016, 155 of the 553 patients originally enrolled had left the study for reasons other than death.
In both treatment cohorts, a large number of patients were unblinded as to their treatment assignments by investigators, which required them to withdraw consent from the study under the protocol, resulting in the aforementioned loss of some data on subsequent therapy and survival status.
Final results: PFS2 and OS
At the time of the final data lock on Oct. 1, 2020, the mean follow-up was 67 months (5.6 years).
In all, 64 patients originally assigned to niraparib were still on study (28 in the germline BRCA mutation cohort and 36 in the nonmutated cohort), as were 28 patients originally assigned to placebo (9 and 19, respectively).
For the final analysis, the investigators were able to retrieve survival data on 51% of the patients originally enrolled, either through protocol amendments and obtaining consent again or through national databases.
Although crossover to the niraparib arm was not allowed on study, patients could receive a PARP inhibitor following disease progression or study withdrawal. Because of discontinuations, data on postprogression therapy were missing for 138 of the 553 patients (25%).
The hazard ratio for PFS2 with niraparib versus placebo was 0.67 for patients with germline BRCA mutations (95% confidence interval, 0.479-0.948) and 0.81 for patients without the mutations (95% CI, 0.632-1.050).
In an analysis adjusted for subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy, there was no significant difference in median OS between the niraparib and placebo arms, regardless of mutation status. In the cohort without BRCA mutations, the median OS was 31.3 months with niraparib and 35.9 months with placebo (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.74-1.26).
However, there was a trend toward improved OS with niraparib among patients with germline BRCA mutations. The median OS was 43.8 months with niraparib and 34.1 months with placebo (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99).
Safety: MDS/AML
Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events occurred primarily in the first year of niraparib treatment. The incidence of grade 3 or greater thrombocytopenia decreased from 33.8% at 1 year to 2.8% in years 2-3. The incidence of anemia decreased from 25.6% to 0.7%, and the neutropenia incidence decreased from 19.3% to 2.1%.
At last follow-up, 13 patients in the niraparib arm (3.5%) and 3 in the placebo arm (1.7%) had developed myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
The incidence of MDS/AML was 6.6% among patients with germline BRCA mutations who received niraparib, noted invited discussant Deborah K. Armstrong, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore.
That incidence was nearly as high as the 8% incidence of MDS/AML seen among similar patients in the SOLO-2 trial of olaparib maintenance, she noted.
This observation raises the question “of whether more extensive prior therapy or the longer duration of PARP inhibitor therapy in patients who have recurrent platinum-sensitive disease is the biggest contributor to that,” she said.
Dr. Armstrong commented that it remains to be seen whether the incidence of MDS/AML will increase with longer follow-up, particularly among patients who were more heavily pretreated with chemotherapy prior to PARP inhibitor maintenance, and in patients who remain on a PARP inhibitor until progression in ongoing trials of PARP inhibitors as frontline therapy.
The ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Matulonis reported consulting/advisory fees from Merck, Novartis, and NextCure. Dr. Armstrong disclosed relationships with several companies, not including GlaxoSmithKline.
FROM SGO 2021
Can benefits of SBRT outweigh risks in ultra-central lung tumors?
Of the 72 patients studied, 15 (21%) experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity and 10 (14%) died of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage.
This doesn’t completely write off the use of SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors, according to Joyce Lodeweges, MD, of University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht in the Netherlands.
“We have to inform the patient very well that there are some high risks to this treatment,” she said at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 61M0).
Dr. Lodeweges noted that keeping the biologically effective dose of radiation to the main bronchus below a certain threshold (< 90 Gy) could reduce the risk of toxicity significantly, making SBRT a viable option for some patients. In addition, MRI-guided daily adaptation of the radiation treatment to organs at risk may make the treatment safer.
Varying definitions, regimens spur debate
SBRT is standard care in peripherally located, stage I non–small cell lung cancer that is inoperable or if the patient refuses surgery, noted study discussant Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium.
“[SBRT] has good local control rates with low toxicity even in patients with COPD or being elderly,” Dr. Lievens said.
“In more moderately central tumors, there is quite some evidence that risk-adapted fractionation schemes can be delivered in a safe way and lead to high local control rates,” she added. “For ultra-central legions, there’s still not a recommendation to treat with SBRT because we see a lot of increased toxicity.”
“For ultra-central tumors, SBRT is still under debate,” agreed Dr. Lodeweges. “This is because of the varying definitions in the literature and the varying fractionation schemes used.”
How the location of tumors is defined is important. Central tumors are those that are at least 2 cm away from the main bronchial tree, whereas ultra-central tumors are those that butt onto it or overlap it.
In Dr. Lodeweges’s study, ultra-central tumors were defined as those with a planning target volume (PTV) abutting or overlapping the main bronchi, trachea, and/or esophagus.
Study details
Between 2012 and 2020, there were 72 patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated at UMC Utrecht. Most patients (78%) had a PTV covering the main bronchus, with 21% each having PTVs overlapping the trachea or esophagus.
Patients received a protracted SBRT regimen of 60 Gy given in 12 fractions. The median follow-up was 19 months.
The local failure-free survival rate was 98% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years. Overall survival rates were 77% and 52%, respectively.
Receiving a biologically effective dose of more than 90 Gy to the main bronchus increased the risk of grade 3 or higher toxicity. On the other hand, patient age and tumor histology did not affect the risk of adverse events.
The use of antithrombotic therapy didn’t have any bearing on toxicity either, but it’s a possible risk factor to consider, Dr. Lodeweges said. Peri- or endobronchial tumor location is another consideration.
Findings in context
How do the results of the current study sit with other studies of SBRT in non–small cell lung cancer? Dr. Lievens pointed out that overall survival at 2 years was lower in the current trial (52%) than in patients with central tumors treated in the RTOG 0813 trial (68%-73%) or those with peripheral tumors in the CHISEL trial (77%).
There were, of course, different fractions and doses of radiotherapy used in these trials, with lower doses and more fractions in the UMC Utrecht study, and there was higher toxicity when ultra-central lesions were treated.
“Optimized radiotherapy dose fractionation regimens are investigated quite intensively to improve the clinical benefit. This is an important area of research,” Dr. Lievens said.
The high local control rates but serious risk of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage seen in the current study “calls for further investigation of dose/volume parameters in the context of the location of the tumor but also in the context of other treatment modalities,” she added. “Advanced technologies in radiotherapy, which allow better imaging and daily adaptation, such as the MR-Linac, can optimize clinical benefits.”
The study was supported by UMC Utrecht and received no commercial funding. Dr. Lodeweges and Dr. Lievens had no relevant conflicts of interest.
Of the 72 patients studied, 15 (21%) experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity and 10 (14%) died of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage.
This doesn’t completely write off the use of SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors, according to Joyce Lodeweges, MD, of University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht in the Netherlands.
“We have to inform the patient very well that there are some high risks to this treatment,” she said at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 61M0).
Dr. Lodeweges noted that keeping the biologically effective dose of radiation to the main bronchus below a certain threshold (< 90 Gy) could reduce the risk of toxicity significantly, making SBRT a viable option for some patients. In addition, MRI-guided daily adaptation of the radiation treatment to organs at risk may make the treatment safer.
Varying definitions, regimens spur debate
SBRT is standard care in peripherally located, stage I non–small cell lung cancer that is inoperable or if the patient refuses surgery, noted study discussant Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium.
“[SBRT] has good local control rates with low toxicity even in patients with COPD or being elderly,” Dr. Lievens said.
“In more moderately central tumors, there is quite some evidence that risk-adapted fractionation schemes can be delivered in a safe way and lead to high local control rates,” she added. “For ultra-central legions, there’s still not a recommendation to treat with SBRT because we see a lot of increased toxicity.”
“For ultra-central tumors, SBRT is still under debate,” agreed Dr. Lodeweges. “This is because of the varying definitions in the literature and the varying fractionation schemes used.”
How the location of tumors is defined is important. Central tumors are those that are at least 2 cm away from the main bronchial tree, whereas ultra-central tumors are those that butt onto it or overlap it.
In Dr. Lodeweges’s study, ultra-central tumors were defined as those with a planning target volume (PTV) abutting or overlapping the main bronchi, trachea, and/or esophagus.
Study details
Between 2012 and 2020, there were 72 patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated at UMC Utrecht. Most patients (78%) had a PTV covering the main bronchus, with 21% each having PTVs overlapping the trachea or esophagus.
Patients received a protracted SBRT regimen of 60 Gy given in 12 fractions. The median follow-up was 19 months.
The local failure-free survival rate was 98% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years. Overall survival rates were 77% and 52%, respectively.
Receiving a biologically effective dose of more than 90 Gy to the main bronchus increased the risk of grade 3 or higher toxicity. On the other hand, patient age and tumor histology did not affect the risk of adverse events.
The use of antithrombotic therapy didn’t have any bearing on toxicity either, but it’s a possible risk factor to consider, Dr. Lodeweges said. Peri- or endobronchial tumor location is another consideration.
Findings in context
How do the results of the current study sit with other studies of SBRT in non–small cell lung cancer? Dr. Lievens pointed out that overall survival at 2 years was lower in the current trial (52%) than in patients with central tumors treated in the RTOG 0813 trial (68%-73%) or those with peripheral tumors in the CHISEL trial (77%).
There were, of course, different fractions and doses of radiotherapy used in these trials, with lower doses and more fractions in the UMC Utrecht study, and there was higher toxicity when ultra-central lesions were treated.
“Optimized radiotherapy dose fractionation regimens are investigated quite intensively to improve the clinical benefit. This is an important area of research,” Dr. Lievens said.
The high local control rates but serious risk of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage seen in the current study “calls for further investigation of dose/volume parameters in the context of the location of the tumor but also in the context of other treatment modalities,” she added. “Advanced technologies in radiotherapy, which allow better imaging and daily adaptation, such as the MR-Linac, can optimize clinical benefits.”
The study was supported by UMC Utrecht and received no commercial funding. Dr. Lodeweges and Dr. Lievens had no relevant conflicts of interest.
Of the 72 patients studied, 15 (21%) experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity and 10 (14%) died of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage.
This doesn’t completely write off the use of SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors, according to Joyce Lodeweges, MD, of University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht in the Netherlands.
“We have to inform the patient very well that there are some high risks to this treatment,” she said at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 61M0).
Dr. Lodeweges noted that keeping the biologically effective dose of radiation to the main bronchus below a certain threshold (< 90 Gy) could reduce the risk of toxicity significantly, making SBRT a viable option for some patients. In addition, MRI-guided daily adaptation of the radiation treatment to organs at risk may make the treatment safer.
Varying definitions, regimens spur debate
SBRT is standard care in peripherally located, stage I non–small cell lung cancer that is inoperable or if the patient refuses surgery, noted study discussant Yolande Lievens, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium.
“[SBRT] has good local control rates with low toxicity even in patients with COPD or being elderly,” Dr. Lievens said.
“In more moderately central tumors, there is quite some evidence that risk-adapted fractionation schemes can be delivered in a safe way and lead to high local control rates,” she added. “For ultra-central legions, there’s still not a recommendation to treat with SBRT because we see a lot of increased toxicity.”
“For ultra-central tumors, SBRT is still under debate,” agreed Dr. Lodeweges. “This is because of the varying definitions in the literature and the varying fractionation schemes used.”
How the location of tumors is defined is important. Central tumors are those that are at least 2 cm away from the main bronchial tree, whereas ultra-central tumors are those that butt onto it or overlap it.
In Dr. Lodeweges’s study, ultra-central tumors were defined as those with a planning target volume (PTV) abutting or overlapping the main bronchi, trachea, and/or esophagus.
Study details
Between 2012 and 2020, there were 72 patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated at UMC Utrecht. Most patients (78%) had a PTV covering the main bronchus, with 21% each having PTVs overlapping the trachea or esophagus.
Patients received a protracted SBRT regimen of 60 Gy given in 12 fractions. The median follow-up was 19 months.
The local failure-free survival rate was 98% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years. Overall survival rates were 77% and 52%, respectively.
Receiving a biologically effective dose of more than 90 Gy to the main bronchus increased the risk of grade 3 or higher toxicity. On the other hand, patient age and tumor histology did not affect the risk of adverse events.
The use of antithrombotic therapy didn’t have any bearing on toxicity either, but it’s a possible risk factor to consider, Dr. Lodeweges said. Peri- or endobronchial tumor location is another consideration.
Findings in context
How do the results of the current study sit with other studies of SBRT in non–small cell lung cancer? Dr. Lievens pointed out that overall survival at 2 years was lower in the current trial (52%) than in patients with central tumors treated in the RTOG 0813 trial (68%-73%) or those with peripheral tumors in the CHISEL trial (77%).
There were, of course, different fractions and doses of radiotherapy used in these trials, with lower doses and more fractions in the UMC Utrecht study, and there was higher toxicity when ultra-central lesions were treated.
“Optimized radiotherapy dose fractionation regimens are investigated quite intensively to improve the clinical benefit. This is an important area of research,” Dr. Lievens said.
The high local control rates but serious risk of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage seen in the current study “calls for further investigation of dose/volume parameters in the context of the location of the tumor but also in the context of other treatment modalities,” she added. “Advanced technologies in radiotherapy, which allow better imaging and daily adaptation, such as the MR-Linac, can optimize clinical benefits.”
The study was supported by UMC Utrecht and received no commercial funding. Dr. Lodeweges and Dr. Lievens had no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ELCC 2021
Experts highlight recent breakthroughs in psoriatic arthritis
Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?
Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.
A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”
“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.
“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.
Dr. Ogdie concurred.
“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.
A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.
No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors
A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.
The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.
“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.
Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”
“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?
A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.
“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”
This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.
“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.
Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”
“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.
Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?
Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.
A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”
“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.
“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.
Dr. Ogdie concurred.
“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.
A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.
No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors
A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.
The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.
“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.
Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”
“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?
A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.
“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”
This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.
“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.
Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”
“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.
Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?
Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.
A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”
“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.
“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.
Dr. Ogdie concurred.
“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.
A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.
No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors
A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.
The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.
“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.
Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”
“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?
A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.
“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”
This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.
“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.
Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”
“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.
Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
FROM RWCS 2021
KRYSTAL-1: Clear activity of adagrasib in KRAS-mutated NSCLC
An objective response rate was seen in 45% of patients, with a further 51% achieving stable disease, for a disease control rate of 96%.
“The vast majority of patients had significant tumor shrinkage,” said study investigator Gregory J. Riely, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 990_PR).
Dr. Riely, vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that just 6 of the 70 patients in this phase 1/2 trial showed evidence of measurable tumor growth.
“This new way of targeting an oncogene may very well represent an evolutionary step forward in the management of lung cancer patients, akin to when we first had EGFR inhibitors,” Alastair Greystoke, MBChB, PhD, said in his discussion of the trial.
Dr. Greystoke, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant in medical oncology at Newcastle (England) University, observed that the availability of KRAS-targeting agents could have a large potential impact on clinical practice. They could add another 14% of patients with NSCLC to the list of those who are eligible for molecularly-targeted therapy.
“It may be that soon, almost half our patients with lung adenocarcinoma will have a potential targetable abnormality,” Dr. Greystoke said.
Data confirm KRAS as a therapeutic target
Adagrasib is now the second drug to show promise as an inhibitor of KRAS G12C. In a phase 2 trial, the KRAS inhibitor sotorasib produced a response rate of 37%, a median response duration of 10 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months in patients with NSCLC.
Data on response duration and progression-free survival are not yet available for adagrasib. However, the duration of response extended past 11 months in four of the six patients who achieved a partial response to adagrasib in the phase 1/1b portion of the KRYSTAL-1 trial.
“What we’ve seen from this data, and data with other agents, is that responses are very heterogeneous,” Dr. Greystoke observed. “A small number of patients do not respond at all. In some patients, responses are short-lived, whilst in other patients, responses are long and still ongoing.”
KRYSTAL-1 study design and safety
KRYSTAL-1 is an ongoing phase 1/2 study designed to assess the safety and clinical activity of adagrasib in patients with advanced solid tumors that have a KRAS G12C mutation, including NSCLC.
Dr. Riely reported data on 79 patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed despite being treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Of these, 18 patients had participated in the phase 1/1b dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase of the study, and 61 had participated in the phase 2 portion. Adagrasib was given at a twice-daily dose of 600 mg.
The patients’ median age was 65 years, 85% were White, and 57% were women. Almost all (95%) were current or former smokers, which is unsurprising since the KRAS G12C mutation is rarely seen in never-smokers. Almost all patients had nonsquamous histology (96%) and had received PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (92%).
Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 85% of patients, and 30% of patients had grade 3-4 events. The most frequent treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (6%), increased ALT or AST (each 5%), QT prolongation (3%), anemia (2%), nausea (2%), and vomiting (2%).
Two grade 5 adverse events were recorded – a case of pneumonitis in a patient with recurrent pneumonitis and one case of cardiac failure. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 4.5% of patients.
Greater effect seen with co-mutation
KRAS is commonly co-mutated, so the investigators performed an exploratory analysis to see if the presence of other mutations – STK11, KEAP1, and TP53 – might affect the results of adagrasib.
A greater objective response rate was seen in patients with the STK11 mutation than in those without it (64% and 33%, respectively). STK11 is associated with poorer responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors.
“We hypothesized that adagrasib treatment recruits T cells into the tumor and that T-cell infiltration may reverse STK11-mediated immune suppression,” Dr. Riely said. This theory seemed to be borne out with further analyses, though Dr. Greystoke raised doubts. There was no sign of STK11 mutations having any effect on response rates with adagrasib in preclinical studies.
Patients with KEAP1 as a co-mutation had a lower response rate than that of those without it (36% and 48%, respectively), which is in keeping with what might be expected. KEAP1 is known to be associated to a poor response to chemotherapy and immunotherapy.
“I think this data is very provocative but needs to be confirmed in larger cohorts,” Dr. Greystoke said. It could mean that adagrasib has the potential to turn a “cold tumor, hot,” enabling the use of immunotherapies.
A new cohort has been included in the KRYSTAL-1 study to further evaluate how having both the KRAS G12C and STK11 mutations may affect treatment with adagrasib.
Data could support drug combination
The adagrasib data lend support to the combination of KRAS G12C inhibitors with other molecularly-targeted treatments for NSCLC, Dr. Greystoke said, such as with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapies. He noted that high steady-state levels of adagrasib were detected in the blood, and these levels were well above those needed for potential efficacy.
“This gives us confidence that if we do need to drop the dose below the recommended phase 2 dose to allow potential combinations with a small-molecule inhibitor due to overlapping toxicity or overlapping pharmacokinetics, that it is safe to do and shouldn’t [have an] impact on efficacy,” Dr. Greystoke said. “Overall, all this information will help us drive forward the next round of clinical trials of probably a combination of treatments.”
The KRYSTAL-1 study is supported by Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. Dr. Riely disclosed relationships with Mirati Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and Roche. Dr. Greystoke was not involved in the study but disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Takeda, and Roche.
An objective response rate was seen in 45% of patients, with a further 51% achieving stable disease, for a disease control rate of 96%.
“The vast majority of patients had significant tumor shrinkage,” said study investigator Gregory J. Riely, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 990_PR).
Dr. Riely, vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that just 6 of the 70 patients in this phase 1/2 trial showed evidence of measurable tumor growth.
“This new way of targeting an oncogene may very well represent an evolutionary step forward in the management of lung cancer patients, akin to when we first had EGFR inhibitors,” Alastair Greystoke, MBChB, PhD, said in his discussion of the trial.
Dr. Greystoke, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant in medical oncology at Newcastle (England) University, observed that the availability of KRAS-targeting agents could have a large potential impact on clinical practice. They could add another 14% of patients with NSCLC to the list of those who are eligible for molecularly-targeted therapy.
“It may be that soon, almost half our patients with lung adenocarcinoma will have a potential targetable abnormality,” Dr. Greystoke said.
Data confirm KRAS as a therapeutic target
Adagrasib is now the second drug to show promise as an inhibitor of KRAS G12C. In a phase 2 trial, the KRAS inhibitor sotorasib produced a response rate of 37%, a median response duration of 10 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months in patients with NSCLC.
Data on response duration and progression-free survival are not yet available for adagrasib. However, the duration of response extended past 11 months in four of the six patients who achieved a partial response to adagrasib in the phase 1/1b portion of the KRYSTAL-1 trial.
“What we’ve seen from this data, and data with other agents, is that responses are very heterogeneous,” Dr. Greystoke observed. “A small number of patients do not respond at all. In some patients, responses are short-lived, whilst in other patients, responses are long and still ongoing.”
KRYSTAL-1 study design and safety
KRYSTAL-1 is an ongoing phase 1/2 study designed to assess the safety and clinical activity of adagrasib in patients with advanced solid tumors that have a KRAS G12C mutation, including NSCLC.
Dr. Riely reported data on 79 patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed despite being treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Of these, 18 patients had participated in the phase 1/1b dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase of the study, and 61 had participated in the phase 2 portion. Adagrasib was given at a twice-daily dose of 600 mg.
The patients’ median age was 65 years, 85% were White, and 57% were women. Almost all (95%) were current or former smokers, which is unsurprising since the KRAS G12C mutation is rarely seen in never-smokers. Almost all patients had nonsquamous histology (96%) and had received PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (92%).
Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 85% of patients, and 30% of patients had grade 3-4 events. The most frequent treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (6%), increased ALT or AST (each 5%), QT prolongation (3%), anemia (2%), nausea (2%), and vomiting (2%).
Two grade 5 adverse events were recorded – a case of pneumonitis in a patient with recurrent pneumonitis and one case of cardiac failure. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 4.5% of patients.
Greater effect seen with co-mutation
KRAS is commonly co-mutated, so the investigators performed an exploratory analysis to see if the presence of other mutations – STK11, KEAP1, and TP53 – might affect the results of adagrasib.
A greater objective response rate was seen in patients with the STK11 mutation than in those without it (64% and 33%, respectively). STK11 is associated with poorer responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors.
“We hypothesized that adagrasib treatment recruits T cells into the tumor and that T-cell infiltration may reverse STK11-mediated immune suppression,” Dr. Riely said. This theory seemed to be borne out with further analyses, though Dr. Greystoke raised doubts. There was no sign of STK11 mutations having any effect on response rates with adagrasib in preclinical studies.
Patients with KEAP1 as a co-mutation had a lower response rate than that of those without it (36% and 48%, respectively), which is in keeping with what might be expected. KEAP1 is known to be associated to a poor response to chemotherapy and immunotherapy.
“I think this data is very provocative but needs to be confirmed in larger cohorts,” Dr. Greystoke said. It could mean that adagrasib has the potential to turn a “cold tumor, hot,” enabling the use of immunotherapies.
A new cohort has been included in the KRYSTAL-1 study to further evaluate how having both the KRAS G12C and STK11 mutations may affect treatment with adagrasib.
Data could support drug combination
The adagrasib data lend support to the combination of KRAS G12C inhibitors with other molecularly-targeted treatments for NSCLC, Dr. Greystoke said, such as with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapies. He noted that high steady-state levels of adagrasib were detected in the blood, and these levels were well above those needed for potential efficacy.
“This gives us confidence that if we do need to drop the dose below the recommended phase 2 dose to allow potential combinations with a small-molecule inhibitor due to overlapping toxicity or overlapping pharmacokinetics, that it is safe to do and shouldn’t [have an] impact on efficacy,” Dr. Greystoke said. “Overall, all this information will help us drive forward the next round of clinical trials of probably a combination of treatments.”
The KRYSTAL-1 study is supported by Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. Dr. Riely disclosed relationships with Mirati Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and Roche. Dr. Greystoke was not involved in the study but disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Takeda, and Roche.
An objective response rate was seen in 45% of patients, with a further 51% achieving stable disease, for a disease control rate of 96%.
“The vast majority of patients had significant tumor shrinkage,” said study investigator Gregory J. Riely, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the European Lung Cancer Virtual Congress 2021 (Abstract 990_PR).
Dr. Riely, vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted that just 6 of the 70 patients in this phase 1/2 trial showed evidence of measurable tumor growth.
“This new way of targeting an oncogene may very well represent an evolutionary step forward in the management of lung cancer patients, akin to when we first had EGFR inhibitors,” Alastair Greystoke, MBChB, PhD, said in his discussion of the trial.
Dr. Greystoke, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant in medical oncology at Newcastle (England) University, observed that the availability of KRAS-targeting agents could have a large potential impact on clinical practice. They could add another 14% of patients with NSCLC to the list of those who are eligible for molecularly-targeted therapy.
“It may be that soon, almost half our patients with lung adenocarcinoma will have a potential targetable abnormality,” Dr. Greystoke said.
Data confirm KRAS as a therapeutic target
Adagrasib is now the second drug to show promise as an inhibitor of KRAS G12C. In a phase 2 trial, the KRAS inhibitor sotorasib produced a response rate of 37%, a median response duration of 10 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months in patients with NSCLC.
Data on response duration and progression-free survival are not yet available for adagrasib. However, the duration of response extended past 11 months in four of the six patients who achieved a partial response to adagrasib in the phase 1/1b portion of the KRYSTAL-1 trial.
“What we’ve seen from this data, and data with other agents, is that responses are very heterogeneous,” Dr. Greystoke observed. “A small number of patients do not respond at all. In some patients, responses are short-lived, whilst in other patients, responses are long and still ongoing.”
KRYSTAL-1 study design and safety
KRYSTAL-1 is an ongoing phase 1/2 study designed to assess the safety and clinical activity of adagrasib in patients with advanced solid tumors that have a KRAS G12C mutation, including NSCLC.
Dr. Riely reported data on 79 patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed despite being treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Of these, 18 patients had participated in the phase 1/1b dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase of the study, and 61 had participated in the phase 2 portion. Adagrasib was given at a twice-daily dose of 600 mg.
The patients’ median age was 65 years, 85% were White, and 57% were women. Almost all (95%) were current or former smokers, which is unsurprising since the KRAS G12C mutation is rarely seen in never-smokers. Almost all patients had nonsquamous histology (96%) and had received PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (92%).
Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 85% of patients, and 30% of patients had grade 3-4 events. The most frequent treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (6%), increased ALT or AST (each 5%), QT prolongation (3%), anemia (2%), nausea (2%), and vomiting (2%).
Two grade 5 adverse events were recorded – a case of pneumonitis in a patient with recurrent pneumonitis and one case of cardiac failure. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 4.5% of patients.
Greater effect seen with co-mutation
KRAS is commonly co-mutated, so the investigators performed an exploratory analysis to see if the presence of other mutations – STK11, KEAP1, and TP53 – might affect the results of adagrasib.
A greater objective response rate was seen in patients with the STK11 mutation than in those without it (64% and 33%, respectively). STK11 is associated with poorer responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors.
“We hypothesized that adagrasib treatment recruits T cells into the tumor and that T-cell infiltration may reverse STK11-mediated immune suppression,” Dr. Riely said. This theory seemed to be borne out with further analyses, though Dr. Greystoke raised doubts. There was no sign of STK11 mutations having any effect on response rates with adagrasib in preclinical studies.
Patients with KEAP1 as a co-mutation had a lower response rate than that of those without it (36% and 48%, respectively), which is in keeping with what might be expected. KEAP1 is known to be associated to a poor response to chemotherapy and immunotherapy.
“I think this data is very provocative but needs to be confirmed in larger cohorts,” Dr. Greystoke said. It could mean that adagrasib has the potential to turn a “cold tumor, hot,” enabling the use of immunotherapies.
A new cohort has been included in the KRYSTAL-1 study to further evaluate how having both the KRAS G12C and STK11 mutations may affect treatment with adagrasib.
Data could support drug combination
The adagrasib data lend support to the combination of KRAS G12C inhibitors with other molecularly-targeted treatments for NSCLC, Dr. Greystoke said, such as with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapies. He noted that high steady-state levels of adagrasib were detected in the blood, and these levels were well above those needed for potential efficacy.
“This gives us confidence that if we do need to drop the dose below the recommended phase 2 dose to allow potential combinations with a small-molecule inhibitor due to overlapping toxicity or overlapping pharmacokinetics, that it is safe to do and shouldn’t [have an] impact on efficacy,” Dr. Greystoke said. “Overall, all this information will help us drive forward the next round of clinical trials of probably a combination of treatments.”
The KRYSTAL-1 study is supported by Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. Dr. Riely disclosed relationships with Mirati Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and Roche. Dr. Greystoke was not involved in the study but disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Takeda, and Roche.
FROM ELCC 2021
STEP 4: Ongoing semaglutide treatment extends weight loss
Weekly injections with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide helped people maintain, and even increase, their initial weight loss on the agent when they continued treatment beyond 20 weeks in results from an international, multicenter trial with 803 randomized subjects.
The study “reflects what we always see in practice, that when people lose weight their body then fights to regain it. The results underscore this” by showing what happens when people stop the drug, Domenica M. Rubino, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The STEP 4 study began with 902 obese or higher-risk people with an average body mass index of about 38 kg/m2 who underwent a 20-week, open-label, run-in phase of weekly subcutaneous injections of semaglutide (Ozempic), during which all subjects gradually up-titrated to the study’s maintenance dosage of 2.4 mg/week and allowing investigators to weed out intolerant, noncompliant, or nonresponsive people. After this phase excluded 99 subjects from continuing, and documented that the remaining 803 patients had already lost an average of 11% of their starting weight, the core of the study kicked in by randomizing them 2:1 to either maintain their weekly semaglutide injections for another 48 weeks or change to placebo injections.
After 48 more weeks, the 535 people who continued active semaglutide treatment lost on average an additional 8% of their weight. Meanwhile, the 268 who switched to placebo gained 7% of the weight they had reached at the 20-week point, for a significant between-group weight-loss difference of about 15% for the study’s primary endpoint. Those maintained on semaglutide for the full 68 weeks had a cumulative average weight loss of about 17%, compared with when they first began treatment, Dr. Rubino said. Concurrently with her report, the results also appeared in an article published online in JAMA.
“It’s reassuring that people who remain on this treatment can sustain weight losses of 15%, and in some cases 20% or more. That’s huge,” Dr. Rubino said in an interview. . After 68 weeks, 40% of the people who maintained their semaglutide treatment had lost at least 20% of their weight, compared with when they first started treatment.
“Preventing weight regain following initial weight loss is a well-known major challenge for people who lose weight,” commented John Clark III, MD, PhD, a weight management specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who was not involved with the study. The findings from STEP 4 will be “helpful to have a discussion [with weight-loss patients] about the risks and benefits of continuing to take this medication longer than just a few months and if they want to continue taking the medication after they reach their goal weight,” Dr. Clark noted in an interview. “This new information reinforces that treatment continues to be effective after the short term.”
“This is obesity 101. If a treatment is provided that targets mechanisms of obesity, and then the treatment stops, we should not be surprised that weight regain occurs,” commented Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, codirector of the Yale Center for Weight Management in New Haven, Conn. “It’s tragic to see patients who, after successful weight loss, suffer regain because the treatment by which they lost weight stopped,” she said in an interview.
The STEP 4 study ran at 73 centers in 10 countries during 2018-2020. It enrolled adults without diabetes and with a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 if they also had at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or obstructive sleep apnea. Participants averaged about 47 years of age, almost 80% were women, and about 84% were White, including 8% of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity.
The adverse-event profile was consistent with findings from trials where semaglutide treated hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (semaglutide at a maximum once-weekly dosage of 1 mg has Food and Drug Administration approval for controlling hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes), as well results from other semaglutide studies and from studies of other agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class.
In STEP 4 9% of patients who received semaglutide during the randomized phase and 7% of those randomized to placebo had a serious adverse reaction, and about 2% of those in both treatment arms stopped treatment because of an adverse event. The most common adverse events on semaglutide were gastrointestinal, with diarrhea in 14%, nausea in 14%, constipation in 12%, and vomiting in 10%.
These GI effects are often mitigated by slower dose escalation, eating smaller amounts of food at a time, and not eating beyond the point of feeling full, noted Dr. Jastreboff.
The STEP 4 results follow prior reports from three other large trials – STEP 1, STEP 2, and STEP 3 – that studied the weight-loss effects of weekly semaglutide treatment in adults using varying enrollment criteria and treatment designs. “We’ve seen very consistent results [across all four studies] for efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Rubino, who owns and directs the Washington Center for Weight Management & Research in Arlington, Va.
NovoNordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, submitted data from all four studies to the FDA late last year in an application for a new label for a weight loss indication at the 2.4-mg/week dosage. The company has said it expects an agency decision by June 2021.
Dr. Rubino has been an adviser and consultant to and a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, and she has also been an investigator for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Clark had no disclosures. Dr. Jastreboff is consultant for and has received research funding from NovoNordisk, and she has also been a consultant to and/or received research from Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim.
Weekly injections with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide helped people maintain, and even increase, their initial weight loss on the agent when they continued treatment beyond 20 weeks in results from an international, multicenter trial with 803 randomized subjects.
The study “reflects what we always see in practice, that when people lose weight their body then fights to regain it. The results underscore this” by showing what happens when people stop the drug, Domenica M. Rubino, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The STEP 4 study began with 902 obese or higher-risk people with an average body mass index of about 38 kg/m2 who underwent a 20-week, open-label, run-in phase of weekly subcutaneous injections of semaglutide (Ozempic), during which all subjects gradually up-titrated to the study’s maintenance dosage of 2.4 mg/week and allowing investigators to weed out intolerant, noncompliant, or nonresponsive people. After this phase excluded 99 subjects from continuing, and documented that the remaining 803 patients had already lost an average of 11% of their starting weight, the core of the study kicked in by randomizing them 2:1 to either maintain their weekly semaglutide injections for another 48 weeks or change to placebo injections.
After 48 more weeks, the 535 people who continued active semaglutide treatment lost on average an additional 8% of their weight. Meanwhile, the 268 who switched to placebo gained 7% of the weight they had reached at the 20-week point, for a significant between-group weight-loss difference of about 15% for the study’s primary endpoint. Those maintained on semaglutide for the full 68 weeks had a cumulative average weight loss of about 17%, compared with when they first began treatment, Dr. Rubino said. Concurrently with her report, the results also appeared in an article published online in JAMA.
“It’s reassuring that people who remain on this treatment can sustain weight losses of 15%, and in some cases 20% or more. That’s huge,” Dr. Rubino said in an interview. . After 68 weeks, 40% of the people who maintained their semaglutide treatment had lost at least 20% of their weight, compared with when they first started treatment.
“Preventing weight regain following initial weight loss is a well-known major challenge for people who lose weight,” commented John Clark III, MD, PhD, a weight management specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who was not involved with the study. The findings from STEP 4 will be “helpful to have a discussion [with weight-loss patients] about the risks and benefits of continuing to take this medication longer than just a few months and if they want to continue taking the medication after they reach their goal weight,” Dr. Clark noted in an interview. “This new information reinforces that treatment continues to be effective after the short term.”
“This is obesity 101. If a treatment is provided that targets mechanisms of obesity, and then the treatment stops, we should not be surprised that weight regain occurs,” commented Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, codirector of the Yale Center for Weight Management in New Haven, Conn. “It’s tragic to see patients who, after successful weight loss, suffer regain because the treatment by which they lost weight stopped,” she said in an interview.
The STEP 4 study ran at 73 centers in 10 countries during 2018-2020. It enrolled adults without diabetes and with a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 if they also had at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or obstructive sleep apnea. Participants averaged about 47 years of age, almost 80% were women, and about 84% were White, including 8% of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity.
The adverse-event profile was consistent with findings from trials where semaglutide treated hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (semaglutide at a maximum once-weekly dosage of 1 mg has Food and Drug Administration approval for controlling hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes), as well results from other semaglutide studies and from studies of other agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class.
In STEP 4 9% of patients who received semaglutide during the randomized phase and 7% of those randomized to placebo had a serious adverse reaction, and about 2% of those in both treatment arms stopped treatment because of an adverse event. The most common adverse events on semaglutide were gastrointestinal, with diarrhea in 14%, nausea in 14%, constipation in 12%, and vomiting in 10%.
These GI effects are often mitigated by slower dose escalation, eating smaller amounts of food at a time, and not eating beyond the point of feeling full, noted Dr. Jastreboff.
The STEP 4 results follow prior reports from three other large trials – STEP 1, STEP 2, and STEP 3 – that studied the weight-loss effects of weekly semaglutide treatment in adults using varying enrollment criteria and treatment designs. “We’ve seen very consistent results [across all four studies] for efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Rubino, who owns and directs the Washington Center for Weight Management & Research in Arlington, Va.
NovoNordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, submitted data from all four studies to the FDA late last year in an application for a new label for a weight loss indication at the 2.4-mg/week dosage. The company has said it expects an agency decision by June 2021.
Dr. Rubino has been an adviser and consultant to and a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, and she has also been an investigator for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Clark had no disclosures. Dr. Jastreboff is consultant for and has received research funding from NovoNordisk, and she has also been a consultant to and/or received research from Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim.
Weekly injections with the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide helped people maintain, and even increase, their initial weight loss on the agent when they continued treatment beyond 20 weeks in results from an international, multicenter trial with 803 randomized subjects.
The study “reflects what we always see in practice, that when people lose weight their body then fights to regain it. The results underscore this” by showing what happens when people stop the drug, Domenica M. Rubino, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The STEP 4 study began with 902 obese or higher-risk people with an average body mass index of about 38 kg/m2 who underwent a 20-week, open-label, run-in phase of weekly subcutaneous injections of semaglutide (Ozempic), during which all subjects gradually up-titrated to the study’s maintenance dosage of 2.4 mg/week and allowing investigators to weed out intolerant, noncompliant, or nonresponsive people. After this phase excluded 99 subjects from continuing, and documented that the remaining 803 patients had already lost an average of 11% of their starting weight, the core of the study kicked in by randomizing them 2:1 to either maintain their weekly semaglutide injections for another 48 weeks or change to placebo injections.
After 48 more weeks, the 535 people who continued active semaglutide treatment lost on average an additional 8% of their weight. Meanwhile, the 268 who switched to placebo gained 7% of the weight they had reached at the 20-week point, for a significant between-group weight-loss difference of about 15% for the study’s primary endpoint. Those maintained on semaglutide for the full 68 weeks had a cumulative average weight loss of about 17%, compared with when they first began treatment, Dr. Rubino said. Concurrently with her report, the results also appeared in an article published online in JAMA.
“It’s reassuring that people who remain on this treatment can sustain weight losses of 15%, and in some cases 20% or more. That’s huge,” Dr. Rubino said in an interview. . After 68 weeks, 40% of the people who maintained their semaglutide treatment had lost at least 20% of their weight, compared with when they first started treatment.
“Preventing weight regain following initial weight loss is a well-known major challenge for people who lose weight,” commented John Clark III, MD, PhD, a weight management specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who was not involved with the study. The findings from STEP 4 will be “helpful to have a discussion [with weight-loss patients] about the risks and benefits of continuing to take this medication longer than just a few months and if they want to continue taking the medication after they reach their goal weight,” Dr. Clark noted in an interview. “This new information reinforces that treatment continues to be effective after the short term.”
“This is obesity 101. If a treatment is provided that targets mechanisms of obesity, and then the treatment stops, we should not be surprised that weight regain occurs,” commented Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, codirector of the Yale Center for Weight Management in New Haven, Conn. “It’s tragic to see patients who, after successful weight loss, suffer regain because the treatment by which they lost weight stopped,” she said in an interview.
The STEP 4 study ran at 73 centers in 10 countries during 2018-2020. It enrolled adults without diabetes and with a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 if they also had at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, or obstructive sleep apnea. Participants averaged about 47 years of age, almost 80% were women, and about 84% were White, including 8% of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity.
The adverse-event profile was consistent with findings from trials where semaglutide treated hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (semaglutide at a maximum once-weekly dosage of 1 mg has Food and Drug Administration approval for controlling hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes), as well results from other semaglutide studies and from studies of other agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class.
In STEP 4 9% of patients who received semaglutide during the randomized phase and 7% of those randomized to placebo had a serious adverse reaction, and about 2% of those in both treatment arms stopped treatment because of an adverse event. The most common adverse events on semaglutide were gastrointestinal, with diarrhea in 14%, nausea in 14%, constipation in 12%, and vomiting in 10%.
These GI effects are often mitigated by slower dose escalation, eating smaller amounts of food at a time, and not eating beyond the point of feeling full, noted Dr. Jastreboff.
The STEP 4 results follow prior reports from three other large trials – STEP 1, STEP 2, and STEP 3 – that studied the weight-loss effects of weekly semaglutide treatment in adults using varying enrollment criteria and treatment designs. “We’ve seen very consistent results [across all four studies] for efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Rubino, who owns and directs the Washington Center for Weight Management & Research in Arlington, Va.
NovoNordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, submitted data from all four studies to the FDA late last year in an application for a new label for a weight loss indication at the 2.4-mg/week dosage. The company has said it expects an agency decision by June 2021.
Dr. Rubino has been an adviser and consultant to and a speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk, and she has also been an investigator for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Clark had no disclosures. Dr. Jastreboff is consultant for and has received research funding from NovoNordisk, and she has also been a consultant to and/or received research from Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim.
FROM ENDO 2021
Biomarkers predict efficacy of DKN-01 in endometrial cancer
Among 29 patients with heavily pretreated EEC, outcomes of DKN-01 monotherapy were best in patients with Wnt activating mutations, high levels of DKK1 expression, or PIK3CA activating mutations.
Patients in these groups had better disease control rates and progression-free survival (PFS), reported Rebecca C. Arend, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
“Future development will focus on biomarker-selected patients, specifically patients with Wnt activating mutations, high tumoral DKK1, and PIK3CA activating mutations,” Dr. Arend said at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10717).
She explained that DKK1 has been shown to modulate signaling in the Wnt/beta-catenin pathway, a key regulator of cellular functions in humans and animals that has been highly conserved throughout evolution.
“DKK1 activates P13 kinase/AKT signaling by binding to the CKAP4 receptor to promote tumor growth,” Dr. Arend explained.
Focus on monotherapy
Dr. Arend and colleagues conducted a phase 2 basket trial of DKN-01 either as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel in patients with EEC, epithelial ovarian cancer, and carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed Mullerian tumor). The trial design required at least 50% of patients to have Wnt signaling alterations.
Dr. Arend reported results for 29 patients with EEC who received DKN-01 monotherapy.
There were nine patients with Wnt activating mutations. None of them achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR), but six had stable disease (SD), for a disease control rate of 67%. Of the 20 patients without Wnt activating mutations, 1 achieved a CR, 1 achieved a PR, and 3 had SD, for a disease control rate of 25%.
The median PFS was 5.5 months in patients with Wnt activating mutations and 1.8 months in patients without the mutations.
“Importantly, patients whose tumors have a Wnt activating mutation have a correlation with increased tumoral expression of DKK1 by 14.4-fold higher,” Dr. Arend noted.
When she and her colleagues analyzed patients by DKK1 expression, the team found that high levels of DKK1 correlated with better clinical outcomes. The disease control rate was 57% for patients in the highest third of DKK1 expression (1 PR, 3 SD) vs. 7% (1 SD) for those in the lowest two-thirds. The median PFS was 3 months and 1.8 months, respectively.
Of the seven patients whose tumors could not be evaluated for DKK1 expression, one patient had a CR and 5 had SD, for a disease control rate of 86%. The median PFS in this group was 8.0 months. Three of these patients had known Wnt activating mutations.
“Given this correlation [between] higher DKK1 expression [and] Wnt activating mutations, one could consider that, at a minimum, these patients would have had a higher DKK1 expression as well,” Dr. Arend said.
She and her colleagues also found that patients with PIK3CA activating mutations and two or fewer prior lines of therapy had a 33% overall response rate (1 CR, 1 PR), compared with 0% for patients without these mutations who had two or fewer prior therapies. Patients with PIK3CA activating mutations also had a better disease control rate (67% vs. 40%) and median PFS (5.6 months vs. 1.8 months).
Although Dr. Arend did not present safety data from the study at SGO 2021, she reported some data in a video investor call for Leap Therapeutics, which is developing DKN-01. She said the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with DKN-01 were nausea in 28.8% of patients, fatigue in 26.7%, and constipation in 11.5%. Serious events included acute kidney injury, dyspnea, nausea, and peripheral edema (occurring in 1.9% of patients each).
Monotherapy or combination?
In the question-and-answer session following Dr. Arend’s presentation, comoderator Joyce Liu, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said that “even in the DKK1-high tumors, the activity of DKN-01 as a monotherapy is a little bit limited.”
She asked whether the future of targeting inhibitors in the Wnt/beta-catenin pathway will be limited to biomarker-specific populations or if agents such as DKN-01 should be used in combinations.
“I do think that we need a lot more data to determine,” Dr. Arend replied. “I think that there may be a subset of patients, especially those that don’t tolerate the [lenvatinib/pembrolizumab] combo who may have an upregulation of beta-catenin or a Wnt mutation who could benefit from monotherapy.”
Dr. Arend added that data from her lab and others suggest that DKN-01 in combination with other agents holds promise for improving outcomes in biomarker-selected populations.
The current study is funded by Leap Therapeutics. Dr. Arend disclosed advisory board activity for the company and others. Dr. Liu reported personal fees from several companies, not including Leap Therapeutics.
Among 29 patients with heavily pretreated EEC, outcomes of DKN-01 monotherapy were best in patients with Wnt activating mutations, high levels of DKK1 expression, or PIK3CA activating mutations.
Patients in these groups had better disease control rates and progression-free survival (PFS), reported Rebecca C. Arend, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
“Future development will focus on biomarker-selected patients, specifically patients with Wnt activating mutations, high tumoral DKK1, and PIK3CA activating mutations,” Dr. Arend said at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10717).
She explained that DKK1 has been shown to modulate signaling in the Wnt/beta-catenin pathway, a key regulator of cellular functions in humans and animals that has been highly conserved throughout evolution.
“DKK1 activates P13 kinase/AKT signaling by binding to the CKAP4 receptor to promote tumor growth,” Dr. Arend explained.
Focus on monotherapy
Dr. Arend and colleagues conducted a phase 2 basket trial of DKN-01 either as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel in patients with EEC, epithelial ovarian cancer, and carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed Mullerian tumor). The trial design required at least 50% of patients to have Wnt signaling alterations.
Dr. Arend reported results for 29 patients with EEC who received DKN-01 monotherapy.
There were nine patients with Wnt activating mutations. None of them achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR), but six had stable disease (SD), for a disease control rate of 67%. Of the 20 patients without Wnt activating mutations, 1 achieved a CR, 1 achieved a PR, and 3 had SD, for a disease control rate of 25%.
The median PFS was 5.5 months in patients with Wnt activating mutations and 1.8 months in patients without the mutations.
“Importantly, patients whose tumors have a Wnt activating mutation have a correlation with increased tumoral expression of DKK1 by 14.4-fold higher,” Dr. Arend noted.
When she and her colleagues analyzed patients by DKK1 expression, the team found that high levels of DKK1 correlated with better clinical outcomes. The disease control rate was 57% for patients in the highest third of DKK1 expression (1 PR, 3 SD) vs. 7% (1 SD) for those in the lowest two-thirds. The median PFS was 3 months and 1.8 months, respectively.
Of the seven patients whose tumors could not be evaluated for DKK1 expression, one patient had a CR and 5 had SD, for a disease control rate of 86%. The median PFS in this group was 8.0 months. Three of these patients had known Wnt activating mutations.
“Given this correlation [between] higher DKK1 expression [and] Wnt activating mutations, one could consider that, at a minimum, these patients would have had a higher DKK1 expression as well,” Dr. Arend said.
She and her colleagues also found that patients with PIK3CA activating mutations and two or fewer prior lines of therapy had a 33% overall response rate (1 CR, 1 PR), compared with 0% for patients without these mutations who had two or fewer prior therapies. Patients with PIK3CA activating mutations also had a better disease control rate (67% vs. 40%) and median PFS (5.6 months vs. 1.8 months).
Although Dr. Arend did not present safety data from the study at SGO 2021, she reported some data in a video investor call for Leap Therapeutics, which is developing DKN-01. She said the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with DKN-01 were nausea in 28.8% of patients, fatigue in 26.7%, and constipation in 11.5%. Serious events included acute kidney injury, dyspnea, nausea, and peripheral edema (occurring in 1.9% of patients each).
Monotherapy or combination?
In the question-and-answer session following Dr. Arend’s presentation, comoderator Joyce Liu, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said that “even in the DKK1-high tumors, the activity of DKN-01 as a monotherapy is a little bit limited.”
She asked whether the future of targeting inhibitors in the Wnt/beta-catenin pathway will be limited to biomarker-specific populations or if agents such as DKN-01 should be used in combinations.
“I do think that we need a lot more data to determine,” Dr. Arend replied. “I think that there may be a subset of patients, especially those that don’t tolerate the [lenvatinib/pembrolizumab] combo who may have an upregulation of beta-catenin or a Wnt mutation who could benefit from monotherapy.”
Dr. Arend added that data from her lab and others suggest that DKN-01 in combination with other agents holds promise for improving outcomes in biomarker-selected populations.
The current study is funded by Leap Therapeutics. Dr. Arend disclosed advisory board activity for the company and others. Dr. Liu reported personal fees from several companies, not including Leap Therapeutics.
Among 29 patients with heavily pretreated EEC, outcomes of DKN-01 monotherapy were best in patients with Wnt activating mutations, high levels of DKK1 expression, or PIK3CA activating mutations.
Patients in these groups had better disease control rates and progression-free survival (PFS), reported Rebecca C. Arend, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
“Future development will focus on biomarker-selected patients, specifically patients with Wnt activating mutations, high tumoral DKK1, and PIK3CA activating mutations,” Dr. Arend said at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10717).
She explained that DKK1 has been shown to modulate signaling in the Wnt/beta-catenin pathway, a key regulator of cellular functions in humans and animals that has been highly conserved throughout evolution.
“DKK1 activates P13 kinase/AKT signaling by binding to the CKAP4 receptor to promote tumor growth,” Dr. Arend explained.
Focus on monotherapy
Dr. Arend and colleagues conducted a phase 2 basket trial of DKN-01 either as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel in patients with EEC, epithelial ovarian cancer, and carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed Mullerian tumor). The trial design required at least 50% of patients to have Wnt signaling alterations.
Dr. Arend reported results for 29 patients with EEC who received DKN-01 monotherapy.
There were nine patients with Wnt activating mutations. None of them achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR), but six had stable disease (SD), for a disease control rate of 67%. Of the 20 patients without Wnt activating mutations, 1 achieved a CR, 1 achieved a PR, and 3 had SD, for a disease control rate of 25%.
The median PFS was 5.5 months in patients with Wnt activating mutations and 1.8 months in patients without the mutations.
“Importantly, patients whose tumors have a Wnt activating mutation have a correlation with increased tumoral expression of DKK1 by 14.4-fold higher,” Dr. Arend noted.
When she and her colleagues analyzed patients by DKK1 expression, the team found that high levels of DKK1 correlated with better clinical outcomes. The disease control rate was 57% for patients in the highest third of DKK1 expression (1 PR, 3 SD) vs. 7% (1 SD) for those in the lowest two-thirds. The median PFS was 3 months and 1.8 months, respectively.
Of the seven patients whose tumors could not be evaluated for DKK1 expression, one patient had a CR and 5 had SD, for a disease control rate of 86%. The median PFS in this group was 8.0 months. Three of these patients had known Wnt activating mutations.
“Given this correlation [between] higher DKK1 expression [and] Wnt activating mutations, one could consider that, at a minimum, these patients would have had a higher DKK1 expression as well,” Dr. Arend said.
She and her colleagues also found that patients with PIK3CA activating mutations and two or fewer prior lines of therapy had a 33% overall response rate (1 CR, 1 PR), compared with 0% for patients without these mutations who had two or fewer prior therapies. Patients with PIK3CA activating mutations also had a better disease control rate (67% vs. 40%) and median PFS (5.6 months vs. 1.8 months).
Although Dr. Arend did not present safety data from the study at SGO 2021, she reported some data in a video investor call for Leap Therapeutics, which is developing DKN-01. She said the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with DKN-01 were nausea in 28.8% of patients, fatigue in 26.7%, and constipation in 11.5%. Serious events included acute kidney injury, dyspnea, nausea, and peripheral edema (occurring in 1.9% of patients each).
Monotherapy or combination?
In the question-and-answer session following Dr. Arend’s presentation, comoderator Joyce Liu, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said that “even in the DKK1-high tumors, the activity of DKN-01 as a monotherapy is a little bit limited.”
She asked whether the future of targeting inhibitors in the Wnt/beta-catenin pathway will be limited to biomarker-specific populations or if agents such as DKN-01 should be used in combinations.
“I do think that we need a lot more data to determine,” Dr. Arend replied. “I think that there may be a subset of patients, especially those that don’t tolerate the [lenvatinib/pembrolizumab] combo who may have an upregulation of beta-catenin or a Wnt mutation who could benefit from monotherapy.”
Dr. Arend added that data from her lab and others suggest that DKN-01 in combination with other agents holds promise for improving outcomes in biomarker-selected populations.
The current study is funded by Leap Therapeutics. Dr. Arend disclosed advisory board activity for the company and others. Dr. Liu reported personal fees from several companies, not including Leap Therapeutics.
FROM SGO 2021
Will psoriasis patients embrace proactive topical therapy?
Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?
Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.
“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.
Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”
Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.
PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.
The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.
Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.
“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”
“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.
He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.
Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.
The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?
Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.
“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.
Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”
Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.
PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.
The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.
Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.
“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”
“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.
He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.
Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.
The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?
Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.
“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.
Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”
Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.
PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.
The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.
Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.
“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”
“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.
He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.
Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.
The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM INNOVATIONS IN DERMATOLOGY
Denosumab now dominant therapy for osteoporosis linked to cancer
Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.
In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.
“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.
Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts
In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.
When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.
The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.
In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.
When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab use greater in privately insured
In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .
In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.
Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.
In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.
Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.
There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”
Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.
Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.
In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.
“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.
Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts
In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.
When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.
The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.
In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.
When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab use greater in privately insured
In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .
In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.
Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.
In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.
Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.
There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”
Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.
Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.
In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.
“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.
Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts
In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.
When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.
The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.
In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.
When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab use greater in privately insured
In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .
In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.
Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.
In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.
Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.
There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”
Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.
Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ENDO 2021
Gynecologic cancer patients at risk of insurance loss, ‘catastrophic’ costs
A retrospective study of respondents to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that more than one in five gynecologic cancer patients reported losing health insurance for at least 1 month every year, and more than one in four reported having catastrophic health expenses annually.
Benjamin Albright, MD, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., presented these results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10303).
“We found gynecologic cancer patients to have high rates of insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among the poor,” Dr. Albright said. “Traditional static measurements clearly underestimate the impact of uninsurance, with over 20% of patients reporting some period of uninsurance annually.”
There was no evidence of improvement in any outcome after the implementation of the ACA, compared with the pre-ACA period, “though our assessment was limited in estimate precision by small sample size,” Dr. Albright acknowledged.
Dynamic, not static
Oncology researchers who study access to care and financial toxicities often consider insurance status as a static characteristic, but in the U.S. health care system, the reality is quite different, with insurance status fluctuating by employment or ability to pay, sometimes on a month-to-month basis, according to Dr. Albright.
Citing the Commonwealth Fund’s definition of catastrophic health expenditures as “spending over 10% of income on health care,” Dr. Albright noted that the prevalence of catastrophic out-of-pocket costs “is also relatively poorly described among cancer patients, particularly in accounting for family spending and income dynamics.
“The Affordable Care Act contained measures to address both of these concerns, including coverage protections and expansions, and spending regulations,” he said.
Dr. Albright and colleagues at Duke and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York assessed insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures among gynecologic cancer patients, attempting to determine whether the ACA had helped to limit insurance churn and keep costs manageable.
Representative sample
The investigators conducted a retrospective study of data from Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents from 2006 through 2017, a period that spanned the implementation of the ACA in 2010.
The sample included 684 women younger than 65 years reporting care in the given year related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis. The civilian, noninstitutionalized sample was weighted to represent an estimated average annual population of 533,000 persons. The population was majority White (87%) and non-Hispanic (85.5%).
The investigators found that, compared with the overall U.S. population of people under 65, gynecologic cancer patients were more likely to have incomes of 250% or less of the federal poverty line (45.1% vs. 32.2%, P < .001).
The cancer patients were more likely than was the general population to have less than full-time employment, with 15.2% and 10.5%, respectively, reporting a job change or job loss; 55.3% and 44.1%, respectively, being employed only part of a given year; and 38.6% and 32.4%, respectively, being unemployed for a full year (P < .05 for each comparison).
Gynecologic cancer patients continued to experience insurance troubles and financial hardships after the ACA went into effect, with 8.8% reporting loss of insurance, 18.7% reporting a change in insurance, 21.7% being uninsured for at least 1 month, and 8.4% being uninsured for an entire year.
In addition, 12.8% of gynecologic cancer patients reported catastrophic health expenditures in out-of-pocket costs alone, and 28.0% spent more than 10% of their income on health care when the cost of premiums was factored in.
The numbers were even worse for non-White and Hispanic patients, with 25.9% reporting an insurance change (vs. 16.3% for non-Hispanic Whites) and 30.2% reporting a period of not being insured (vs. 18.7% for non-Hispanic Whites). There were no differences in catastrophic health expenditures by race/ethnicity, however.
Not surprisingly, patients from low-income families had significantly higher probability of having catastrophic expenditures, at 22.7% vs. 3.0% for higher-income families for out-of-pocket expenses alone (P < .001), and 35.3% vs. 20.8%, respectively, when the cost of premiums was included (P = .01).
On the other hand, patients with full-year Medicaid coverage were less likely to suffer from catastrophic costs than were privately-insured patients, at 15.3% vs. 31.3% in the overall sample (P = .02), and 11.5% vs. 62.1% of low-income vs. higher-income patients (P < .001).
There was a trend toward lower catastrophic health expenditures among low-income patients after full implementation of the ACA – 2014-2017 – compared with 2006-2009, but this difference was not statistically significant.
How to change it
In a panel discussion following the presentation, comoderator Eloise Chapman-Davis, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said to Dr. Albright, “As we look to improve equity within our subspecialty, I would like to ask you to comment on how you believe your abstract will inform our gyn-oncology culture and speak to what changes that you believe are needed to better advocate for our patients.”
“I think that our abstract really shows the prevalence of the problems of financial toxicity and of instability in the insurance market in the U.S.,” he replied. “I think it points out that we need to be more proactive about identifying patients and seeking out patients who may be having issues related to financial toxicity, to try to refer people to resources sooner and upfront.”
The investigators did not list a funding source for the study. Dr. Albright and Dr. Chapman-Davis reported having no conflicts of interest.
A retrospective study of respondents to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that more than one in five gynecologic cancer patients reported losing health insurance for at least 1 month every year, and more than one in four reported having catastrophic health expenses annually.
Benjamin Albright, MD, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., presented these results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10303).
“We found gynecologic cancer patients to have high rates of insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among the poor,” Dr. Albright said. “Traditional static measurements clearly underestimate the impact of uninsurance, with over 20% of patients reporting some period of uninsurance annually.”
There was no evidence of improvement in any outcome after the implementation of the ACA, compared with the pre-ACA period, “though our assessment was limited in estimate precision by small sample size,” Dr. Albright acknowledged.
Dynamic, not static
Oncology researchers who study access to care and financial toxicities often consider insurance status as a static characteristic, but in the U.S. health care system, the reality is quite different, with insurance status fluctuating by employment or ability to pay, sometimes on a month-to-month basis, according to Dr. Albright.
Citing the Commonwealth Fund’s definition of catastrophic health expenditures as “spending over 10% of income on health care,” Dr. Albright noted that the prevalence of catastrophic out-of-pocket costs “is also relatively poorly described among cancer patients, particularly in accounting for family spending and income dynamics.
“The Affordable Care Act contained measures to address both of these concerns, including coverage protections and expansions, and spending regulations,” he said.
Dr. Albright and colleagues at Duke and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York assessed insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures among gynecologic cancer patients, attempting to determine whether the ACA had helped to limit insurance churn and keep costs manageable.
Representative sample
The investigators conducted a retrospective study of data from Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents from 2006 through 2017, a period that spanned the implementation of the ACA in 2010.
The sample included 684 women younger than 65 years reporting care in the given year related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis. The civilian, noninstitutionalized sample was weighted to represent an estimated average annual population of 533,000 persons. The population was majority White (87%) and non-Hispanic (85.5%).
The investigators found that, compared with the overall U.S. population of people under 65, gynecologic cancer patients were more likely to have incomes of 250% or less of the federal poverty line (45.1% vs. 32.2%, P < .001).
The cancer patients were more likely than was the general population to have less than full-time employment, with 15.2% and 10.5%, respectively, reporting a job change or job loss; 55.3% and 44.1%, respectively, being employed only part of a given year; and 38.6% and 32.4%, respectively, being unemployed for a full year (P < .05 for each comparison).
Gynecologic cancer patients continued to experience insurance troubles and financial hardships after the ACA went into effect, with 8.8% reporting loss of insurance, 18.7% reporting a change in insurance, 21.7% being uninsured for at least 1 month, and 8.4% being uninsured for an entire year.
In addition, 12.8% of gynecologic cancer patients reported catastrophic health expenditures in out-of-pocket costs alone, and 28.0% spent more than 10% of their income on health care when the cost of premiums was factored in.
The numbers were even worse for non-White and Hispanic patients, with 25.9% reporting an insurance change (vs. 16.3% for non-Hispanic Whites) and 30.2% reporting a period of not being insured (vs. 18.7% for non-Hispanic Whites). There were no differences in catastrophic health expenditures by race/ethnicity, however.
Not surprisingly, patients from low-income families had significantly higher probability of having catastrophic expenditures, at 22.7% vs. 3.0% for higher-income families for out-of-pocket expenses alone (P < .001), and 35.3% vs. 20.8%, respectively, when the cost of premiums was included (P = .01).
On the other hand, patients with full-year Medicaid coverage were less likely to suffer from catastrophic costs than were privately-insured patients, at 15.3% vs. 31.3% in the overall sample (P = .02), and 11.5% vs. 62.1% of low-income vs. higher-income patients (P < .001).
There was a trend toward lower catastrophic health expenditures among low-income patients after full implementation of the ACA – 2014-2017 – compared with 2006-2009, but this difference was not statistically significant.
How to change it
In a panel discussion following the presentation, comoderator Eloise Chapman-Davis, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said to Dr. Albright, “As we look to improve equity within our subspecialty, I would like to ask you to comment on how you believe your abstract will inform our gyn-oncology culture and speak to what changes that you believe are needed to better advocate for our patients.”
“I think that our abstract really shows the prevalence of the problems of financial toxicity and of instability in the insurance market in the U.S.,” he replied. “I think it points out that we need to be more proactive about identifying patients and seeking out patients who may be having issues related to financial toxicity, to try to refer people to resources sooner and upfront.”
The investigators did not list a funding source for the study. Dr. Albright and Dr. Chapman-Davis reported having no conflicts of interest.
A retrospective study of respondents to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that more than one in five gynecologic cancer patients reported losing health insurance for at least 1 month every year, and more than one in four reported having catastrophic health expenses annually.
Benjamin Albright, MD, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., presented these results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10303).
“We found gynecologic cancer patients to have high rates of insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures, particularly among the poor,” Dr. Albright said. “Traditional static measurements clearly underestimate the impact of uninsurance, with over 20% of patients reporting some period of uninsurance annually.”
There was no evidence of improvement in any outcome after the implementation of the ACA, compared with the pre-ACA period, “though our assessment was limited in estimate precision by small sample size,” Dr. Albright acknowledged.
Dynamic, not static
Oncology researchers who study access to care and financial toxicities often consider insurance status as a static characteristic, but in the U.S. health care system, the reality is quite different, with insurance status fluctuating by employment or ability to pay, sometimes on a month-to-month basis, according to Dr. Albright.
Citing the Commonwealth Fund’s definition of catastrophic health expenditures as “spending over 10% of income on health care,” Dr. Albright noted that the prevalence of catastrophic out-of-pocket costs “is also relatively poorly described among cancer patients, particularly in accounting for family spending and income dynamics.
“The Affordable Care Act contained measures to address both of these concerns, including coverage protections and expansions, and spending regulations,” he said.
Dr. Albright and colleagues at Duke and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York assessed insurance churn and catastrophic health expenditures among gynecologic cancer patients, attempting to determine whether the ACA had helped to limit insurance churn and keep costs manageable.
Representative sample
The investigators conducted a retrospective study of data from Medical Expenditure Panel Survey respondents from 2006 through 2017, a period that spanned the implementation of the ACA in 2010.
The sample included 684 women younger than 65 years reporting care in the given year related to a gynecologic cancer diagnosis. The civilian, noninstitutionalized sample was weighted to represent an estimated average annual population of 533,000 persons. The population was majority White (87%) and non-Hispanic (85.5%).
The investigators found that, compared with the overall U.S. population of people under 65, gynecologic cancer patients were more likely to have incomes of 250% or less of the federal poverty line (45.1% vs. 32.2%, P < .001).
The cancer patients were more likely than was the general population to have less than full-time employment, with 15.2% and 10.5%, respectively, reporting a job change or job loss; 55.3% and 44.1%, respectively, being employed only part of a given year; and 38.6% and 32.4%, respectively, being unemployed for a full year (P < .05 for each comparison).
Gynecologic cancer patients continued to experience insurance troubles and financial hardships after the ACA went into effect, with 8.8% reporting loss of insurance, 18.7% reporting a change in insurance, 21.7% being uninsured for at least 1 month, and 8.4% being uninsured for an entire year.
In addition, 12.8% of gynecologic cancer patients reported catastrophic health expenditures in out-of-pocket costs alone, and 28.0% spent more than 10% of their income on health care when the cost of premiums was factored in.
The numbers were even worse for non-White and Hispanic patients, with 25.9% reporting an insurance change (vs. 16.3% for non-Hispanic Whites) and 30.2% reporting a period of not being insured (vs. 18.7% for non-Hispanic Whites). There were no differences in catastrophic health expenditures by race/ethnicity, however.
Not surprisingly, patients from low-income families had significantly higher probability of having catastrophic expenditures, at 22.7% vs. 3.0% for higher-income families for out-of-pocket expenses alone (P < .001), and 35.3% vs. 20.8%, respectively, when the cost of premiums was included (P = .01).
On the other hand, patients with full-year Medicaid coverage were less likely to suffer from catastrophic costs than were privately-insured patients, at 15.3% vs. 31.3% in the overall sample (P = .02), and 11.5% vs. 62.1% of low-income vs. higher-income patients (P < .001).
There was a trend toward lower catastrophic health expenditures among low-income patients after full implementation of the ACA – 2014-2017 – compared with 2006-2009, but this difference was not statistically significant.
How to change it
In a panel discussion following the presentation, comoderator Eloise Chapman-Davis, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said to Dr. Albright, “As we look to improve equity within our subspecialty, I would like to ask you to comment on how you believe your abstract will inform our gyn-oncology culture and speak to what changes that you believe are needed to better advocate for our patients.”
“I think that our abstract really shows the prevalence of the problems of financial toxicity and of instability in the insurance market in the U.S.,” he replied. “I think it points out that we need to be more proactive about identifying patients and seeking out patients who may be having issues related to financial toxicity, to try to refer people to resources sooner and upfront.”
The investigators did not list a funding source for the study. Dr. Albright and Dr. Chapman-Davis reported having no conflicts of interest.
FROM SGO 2021
Contact allergen of the year found in foam in shin guards, footwear
.
The announcement was made by Donald V. Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology, Columbia University, New York, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year. In his opinion, he said, the most exciting selections occur when international cooperation results in the identification of a new allergen that could become problematic, and acetophenone azine falls into this category.
The chemical formula of acetophenone azine is C16H16N2.
Acetophenone azine was highlighted as a contact allergen in a recent report in Dermatitis. The authors, Nadia Raison-Peyron, MD, from the department of dermatology at the University of Montpelier (France), and Denis Sasseville, MD, from the division of dermatology at McGill University Health Center, Quebec, described publications and reports of about 12 cases of severe allergic contact dermatitis secondary to shin pads or footwear, mainly in children and teens in Europe (one case was in Canada).
A common feature of these cases was the presence of a foam used for cushioning, made of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) used in the relevant products.
In one case, a 13-year-old boy who wore shin pads for soccer developed contact dermatitis on both shins that spread, and was described as severe. Patch testing revealed the EVA foam in the shin pads as the only positive reaction. Similar cases have been reported after exposure to EVA-containing products, including shin pads, sneakers, flip-flops, ski boots, insoles, swimming goggles, and bicycle seats, according to the authors.
In some reports, cases related to footwear presented as dyshidrosiform, vesiculobullous eczema, with or without palmar lesions, or presented as plantar hyperkeratotic dermatitis, they wrote. In other cases, patients experienced scarring and postinflammatory hypopigmentation.
The compound is likely not added to EVA intentionally, they added, but instead is thought to result from reactions between additives during the manufacturing process. The presence of acetophenone azine is not well explained, but the current theory is that it results from a combination of “the degradation of the initiator dicumylperoxide and hydrazine from the foaming agent azodicarbonamide,” the authors said.
In the paper, Dr. Raison-Peyron and Dr. Sasseville recommended a patch testing concentration of 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum, as acetophenone azine is not currently available from path test suppliers, although it can be obtained from chemical product distributors.
“Given the recent discovery of this allergen, it is presumed that cases of allergic contact dermatitis would have been missed and labeled irritant contact dermatitis or dyshidrosis,” they noted. To avoid missing more cases, acetophenone azine should be added to the patch testing shoe series, as well as plastics and glues series, they emphasized.
Although no cases of allergic reactions to acetophenone azine have been reported in the United States to date, it is an emerging allergen that should be on the radar for U.S. dermatologists, Amber Atwater, MD, outgoing ACDS president, said in an interview. The lack of reported cases may be in part attributed to the fact that acetophenone azine is not yet available to purchase for testing in the United States, and the allergen could be present in shin guards and other products identified in reported cases, added Dr. Atwater, associate professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.
.
The announcement was made by Donald V. Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology, Columbia University, New York, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year. In his opinion, he said, the most exciting selections occur when international cooperation results in the identification of a new allergen that could become problematic, and acetophenone azine falls into this category.
The chemical formula of acetophenone azine is C16H16N2.
Acetophenone azine was highlighted as a contact allergen in a recent report in Dermatitis. The authors, Nadia Raison-Peyron, MD, from the department of dermatology at the University of Montpelier (France), and Denis Sasseville, MD, from the division of dermatology at McGill University Health Center, Quebec, described publications and reports of about 12 cases of severe allergic contact dermatitis secondary to shin pads or footwear, mainly in children and teens in Europe (one case was in Canada).
A common feature of these cases was the presence of a foam used for cushioning, made of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) used in the relevant products.
In one case, a 13-year-old boy who wore shin pads for soccer developed contact dermatitis on both shins that spread, and was described as severe. Patch testing revealed the EVA foam in the shin pads as the only positive reaction. Similar cases have been reported after exposure to EVA-containing products, including shin pads, sneakers, flip-flops, ski boots, insoles, swimming goggles, and bicycle seats, according to the authors.
In some reports, cases related to footwear presented as dyshidrosiform, vesiculobullous eczema, with or without palmar lesions, or presented as plantar hyperkeratotic dermatitis, they wrote. In other cases, patients experienced scarring and postinflammatory hypopigmentation.
The compound is likely not added to EVA intentionally, they added, but instead is thought to result from reactions between additives during the manufacturing process. The presence of acetophenone azine is not well explained, but the current theory is that it results from a combination of “the degradation of the initiator dicumylperoxide and hydrazine from the foaming agent azodicarbonamide,” the authors said.
In the paper, Dr. Raison-Peyron and Dr. Sasseville recommended a patch testing concentration of 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum, as acetophenone azine is not currently available from path test suppliers, although it can be obtained from chemical product distributors.
“Given the recent discovery of this allergen, it is presumed that cases of allergic contact dermatitis would have been missed and labeled irritant contact dermatitis or dyshidrosis,” they noted. To avoid missing more cases, acetophenone azine should be added to the patch testing shoe series, as well as plastics and glues series, they emphasized.
Although no cases of allergic reactions to acetophenone azine have been reported in the United States to date, it is an emerging allergen that should be on the radar for U.S. dermatologists, Amber Atwater, MD, outgoing ACDS president, said in an interview. The lack of reported cases may be in part attributed to the fact that acetophenone azine is not yet available to purchase for testing in the United States, and the allergen could be present in shin guards and other products identified in reported cases, added Dr. Atwater, associate professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.
.
The announcement was made by Donald V. Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology, Columbia University, New York, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year. In his opinion, he said, the most exciting selections occur when international cooperation results in the identification of a new allergen that could become problematic, and acetophenone azine falls into this category.
The chemical formula of acetophenone azine is C16H16N2.
Acetophenone azine was highlighted as a contact allergen in a recent report in Dermatitis. The authors, Nadia Raison-Peyron, MD, from the department of dermatology at the University of Montpelier (France), and Denis Sasseville, MD, from the division of dermatology at McGill University Health Center, Quebec, described publications and reports of about 12 cases of severe allergic contact dermatitis secondary to shin pads or footwear, mainly in children and teens in Europe (one case was in Canada).
A common feature of these cases was the presence of a foam used for cushioning, made of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) used in the relevant products.
In one case, a 13-year-old boy who wore shin pads for soccer developed contact dermatitis on both shins that spread, and was described as severe. Patch testing revealed the EVA foam in the shin pads as the only positive reaction. Similar cases have been reported after exposure to EVA-containing products, including shin pads, sneakers, flip-flops, ski boots, insoles, swimming goggles, and bicycle seats, according to the authors.
In some reports, cases related to footwear presented as dyshidrosiform, vesiculobullous eczema, with or without palmar lesions, or presented as plantar hyperkeratotic dermatitis, they wrote. In other cases, patients experienced scarring and postinflammatory hypopigmentation.
The compound is likely not added to EVA intentionally, they added, but instead is thought to result from reactions between additives during the manufacturing process. The presence of acetophenone azine is not well explained, but the current theory is that it results from a combination of “the degradation of the initiator dicumylperoxide and hydrazine from the foaming agent azodicarbonamide,” the authors said.
In the paper, Dr. Raison-Peyron and Dr. Sasseville recommended a patch testing concentration of 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum, as acetophenone azine is not currently available from path test suppliers, although it can be obtained from chemical product distributors.
“Given the recent discovery of this allergen, it is presumed that cases of allergic contact dermatitis would have been missed and labeled irritant contact dermatitis or dyshidrosis,” they noted. To avoid missing more cases, acetophenone azine should be added to the patch testing shoe series, as well as plastics and glues series, they emphasized.
Although no cases of allergic reactions to acetophenone azine have been reported in the United States to date, it is an emerging allergen that should be on the radar for U.S. dermatologists, Amber Atwater, MD, outgoing ACDS president, said in an interview. The lack of reported cases may be in part attributed to the fact that acetophenone azine is not yet available to purchase for testing in the United States, and the allergen could be present in shin guards and other products identified in reported cases, added Dr. Atwater, associate professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.
FROM ACDS 2021