User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
TITAN: Final results confirm apalutamide benefit in mCSPC
At a median follow-up of 44 months, the median overall survival (OS) was not reached in patients who received apalutamide plus standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), but the median OS was 52.2 months in patients who received placebo plus ADT.
“In the final analysis, the risk of death with apalutamide was reduced by 35%, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 and P value of less than .0001. This was similar to the hazard ratio of 0.67 in the primary analysis of TITAN, despite an almost 40% crossover rate from the placebo group to the apalutamide,” said Kim N. Chi, MD, a medical oncologist at BC Cancer Vancouver Prostate Centre.
Dr. Chi reported these results at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancer Symposium (Abstract 11).
Study details
The international, double-blind TITAN trial compared apalutamide (240 mg daily) with placebo, both added to standard ADT, in 1,052 patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, including those with high- and low-volume disease, prior docetaxel use, prior treatment for localized disease, and prior ADT for no more than 6 months.
At the primary analysis, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, the dual primary endpoints of radiographic progression-free survival and OS met statistical significance at a median follow up of 22.7 months.
At the final analysis, the median treatment duration was 39.3 months for the apalutamide arm, 20.2 months for the placebo arm, and 15.4 months for patients who crossed over from placebo to apalutamide.
After adjusting for crossover, the effect of apalutamide on OS increased (HR, 0.52), indicating a reduction in the risk of death by 48% versus placebo, Dr. Chi said. He noted that the treatment effect on OS favored apalutamide in both high- and low-volume disease.
“Treatment with apalutamide also significantly prolonged second progression-free survival on next subsequent therapy and delayed development of castration resistance,” Dr. Chi said.
The median second progression-free survival was 44.0 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the apalutamide arm. The median time to castration resistance was 11.4 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the apalutamide arm.
Health-related quality of life was also maintained in the apalutamide group throughout the study and did not differ from the placebo group. Safety was consistent with previous reports.
“Importantly, the cumulative incidence of treatment-related falls, fracture, and fatigue was similar between groups, as was the cumulative incidence of treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events,” Dr. Chi said.
An increased incidence of any-grade rash that was seen in the apalutamide group was expected but plateaued after about 6 months.
“These results confirm the favorable risk-benefit profile of apalutamide,” Dr. Chi concluded.
Implications for practice
The study results raise questions about how to best incorporate the findings into practice, including how to use docetaxel or other androgen receptor inhibitors in treatment strategies for this patient population and if they should be used in high-volume patients, said Elisabeth Heath, MD, session cochair and associate director of translational science at Wayne State University in Detroit.
Dr. Chi said a number of studies over the past 5 years have demonstrated OS benefit when combining ADT with additional therapy.
“Really, this should be considered the standard of care,” he said. “However, real-world studies ... suggest that only a minority of patients are actually receiving this additional therapy.”
Although there are challenges with comparing outcomes across studies to determine which treatments to use, the TITAN data reinforce apalutamide plus ADT as a good option, including in high-volume patients, Dr. Chi said.
Funding for TITAN was provided by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Chi and Dr. Heath disclosed relationships with Janssen and many other companies. sworcester@mdedge.com
At a median follow-up of 44 months, the median overall survival (OS) was not reached in patients who received apalutamide plus standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), but the median OS was 52.2 months in patients who received placebo plus ADT.
“In the final analysis, the risk of death with apalutamide was reduced by 35%, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 and P value of less than .0001. This was similar to the hazard ratio of 0.67 in the primary analysis of TITAN, despite an almost 40% crossover rate from the placebo group to the apalutamide,” said Kim N. Chi, MD, a medical oncologist at BC Cancer Vancouver Prostate Centre.
Dr. Chi reported these results at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancer Symposium (Abstract 11).
Study details
The international, double-blind TITAN trial compared apalutamide (240 mg daily) with placebo, both added to standard ADT, in 1,052 patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, including those with high- and low-volume disease, prior docetaxel use, prior treatment for localized disease, and prior ADT for no more than 6 months.
At the primary analysis, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, the dual primary endpoints of radiographic progression-free survival and OS met statistical significance at a median follow up of 22.7 months.
At the final analysis, the median treatment duration was 39.3 months for the apalutamide arm, 20.2 months for the placebo arm, and 15.4 months for patients who crossed over from placebo to apalutamide.
After adjusting for crossover, the effect of apalutamide on OS increased (HR, 0.52), indicating a reduction in the risk of death by 48% versus placebo, Dr. Chi said. He noted that the treatment effect on OS favored apalutamide in both high- and low-volume disease.
“Treatment with apalutamide also significantly prolonged second progression-free survival on next subsequent therapy and delayed development of castration resistance,” Dr. Chi said.
The median second progression-free survival was 44.0 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the apalutamide arm. The median time to castration resistance was 11.4 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the apalutamide arm.
Health-related quality of life was also maintained in the apalutamide group throughout the study and did not differ from the placebo group. Safety was consistent with previous reports.
“Importantly, the cumulative incidence of treatment-related falls, fracture, and fatigue was similar between groups, as was the cumulative incidence of treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events,” Dr. Chi said.
An increased incidence of any-grade rash that was seen in the apalutamide group was expected but plateaued after about 6 months.
“These results confirm the favorable risk-benefit profile of apalutamide,” Dr. Chi concluded.
Implications for practice
The study results raise questions about how to best incorporate the findings into practice, including how to use docetaxel or other androgen receptor inhibitors in treatment strategies for this patient population and if they should be used in high-volume patients, said Elisabeth Heath, MD, session cochair and associate director of translational science at Wayne State University in Detroit.
Dr. Chi said a number of studies over the past 5 years have demonstrated OS benefit when combining ADT with additional therapy.
“Really, this should be considered the standard of care,” he said. “However, real-world studies ... suggest that only a minority of patients are actually receiving this additional therapy.”
Although there are challenges with comparing outcomes across studies to determine which treatments to use, the TITAN data reinforce apalutamide plus ADT as a good option, including in high-volume patients, Dr. Chi said.
Funding for TITAN was provided by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Chi and Dr. Heath disclosed relationships with Janssen and many other companies. sworcester@mdedge.com
At a median follow-up of 44 months, the median overall survival (OS) was not reached in patients who received apalutamide plus standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), but the median OS was 52.2 months in patients who received placebo plus ADT.
“In the final analysis, the risk of death with apalutamide was reduced by 35%, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 and P value of less than .0001. This was similar to the hazard ratio of 0.67 in the primary analysis of TITAN, despite an almost 40% crossover rate from the placebo group to the apalutamide,” said Kim N. Chi, MD, a medical oncologist at BC Cancer Vancouver Prostate Centre.
Dr. Chi reported these results at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancer Symposium (Abstract 11).
Study details
The international, double-blind TITAN trial compared apalutamide (240 mg daily) with placebo, both added to standard ADT, in 1,052 patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, including those with high- and low-volume disease, prior docetaxel use, prior treatment for localized disease, and prior ADT for no more than 6 months.
At the primary analysis, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, the dual primary endpoints of radiographic progression-free survival and OS met statistical significance at a median follow up of 22.7 months.
At the final analysis, the median treatment duration was 39.3 months for the apalutamide arm, 20.2 months for the placebo arm, and 15.4 months for patients who crossed over from placebo to apalutamide.
After adjusting for crossover, the effect of apalutamide on OS increased (HR, 0.52), indicating a reduction in the risk of death by 48% versus placebo, Dr. Chi said. He noted that the treatment effect on OS favored apalutamide in both high- and low-volume disease.
“Treatment with apalutamide also significantly prolonged second progression-free survival on next subsequent therapy and delayed development of castration resistance,” Dr. Chi said.
The median second progression-free survival was 44.0 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the apalutamide arm. The median time to castration resistance was 11.4 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the apalutamide arm.
Health-related quality of life was also maintained in the apalutamide group throughout the study and did not differ from the placebo group. Safety was consistent with previous reports.
“Importantly, the cumulative incidence of treatment-related falls, fracture, and fatigue was similar between groups, as was the cumulative incidence of treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events,” Dr. Chi said.
An increased incidence of any-grade rash that was seen in the apalutamide group was expected but plateaued after about 6 months.
“These results confirm the favorable risk-benefit profile of apalutamide,” Dr. Chi concluded.
Implications for practice
The study results raise questions about how to best incorporate the findings into practice, including how to use docetaxel or other androgen receptor inhibitors in treatment strategies for this patient population and if they should be used in high-volume patients, said Elisabeth Heath, MD, session cochair and associate director of translational science at Wayne State University in Detroit.
Dr. Chi said a number of studies over the past 5 years have demonstrated OS benefit when combining ADT with additional therapy.
“Really, this should be considered the standard of care,” he said. “However, real-world studies ... suggest that only a minority of patients are actually receiving this additional therapy.”
Although there are challenges with comparing outcomes across studies to determine which treatments to use, the TITAN data reinforce apalutamide plus ADT as a good option, including in high-volume patients, Dr. Chi said.
Funding for TITAN was provided by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Chi and Dr. Heath disclosed relationships with Janssen and many other companies. sworcester@mdedge.com
FROM GUCS 2021
CCR score can guide treatment decisions after radiation in prostate cancer
The score can identify patients in whom the risk of metastasis after dose-escalated radiation is so small that adding ADT no longer makes clinical sense, according to investigator Jonathan Tward, MD, PhD, of the Genitourinary Cancer Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
His group’s study, which included 741 patients, showed that, below a CCR score of 2.112, the 10-year risk of metastasis was 4.2% with radiation therapy (RT) alone and 3.9% with the addition of ADT.
“Whether you have RT alone, RT plus any duration of ADT, insufficient duration ADT, or sufficient ADT duration by guideline standard, the risk of metastasis never exceeds 5% at 10 years” even in high- and very-high-risk men, Dr. Tward said.
He and his team found that half the men in their study with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, 20% with high-risk disease, and 5% with very-high-risk disease scored below the CCR threshold.
This implies that, for many men, ADT after radiation “adds unnecessary morbidity for an extremely small absolute risk reduction in metastasis-free survival,” Dr. Tward said at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, where he presented the findings (Abstract 195).
Value of CCR
The CCR score tells you if the relative metastasis risk reduction with ADT after radiation – about 50% based on clinical trials – translates to an absolute risk reduction that would matter, Dr. Tward said in an interview.
“Each patient has in their own mind what that risk reduction is that works for them,” he added.
For some patients, a 1%-2% drop in absolute risk is worth it, he said, but most patients wouldn’t be willing to endure the side effects of hormone therapy if the absolute benefit is less than 5%.
The CCR score is a validated prognosticator of metastasis and death in localized prostate cancer. It’s an amalgam of traditional clinical risk factors from the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score and the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score, which measures expression of cell-cycle proliferation genes for a sense of how quickly tumor cells are dividing.
The CCP test is available commercially as Prolaris. It is used mostly to make the call between active surveillance and treatment, Dr. Tward explained, “but I had a hunch this off-the-shelf test would be very good at” helping with ADT decisions after radiation.
‘Uncomfortable’ findings, barriers to acceptance
“People are going to be very uncomfortable with these findings because it’s been ingrained in our heads for the past 20-30 years that you must use hormone therapy with high-risk prostate cancer, and you should use hormone therapy with intermediate risk,” Dr. Tward said.
“It took me a while to believe my own data, but we have used this test for several years to help men decide if they would like to have hormone therapy after radiation. Patients clearly benefit from this information,” he said.
The 2.112 cut point for CCR was determined from a prior study that was presented at GUCS 2020 (Abstract 346) and recently accepted for publication.
In the validation study Dr. Tward presented at GUCS 2021, 70% of patients had intermediate-risk disease, and 30% had high- or very-high-risk disease according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria.
All 741 patients received RT equivalent to at least 75.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, with 84% getting or exceeding 79.2 Gy. About half the men (53%) had ADT after RT.
Genetic testing was done on stored biopsy samples years after the men were treated. Half of them were below the CCR threshold of 2.112. For those above it, the 10-year risk of metastasis was 25.3%.
CCR outperformed CCP alone, CAPRA alone, and NCCN risk groupings for predicting metastasis risk after RT.
Though this validation study was “successful,” additional research is needed, according to study discussant Richard Valicenti, MD, of the University of California, Davis.
“Widespread acceptance for routine use faces challenges since no biomarker has been prospectively tested or shown to improve long-term outcome,” Dr. Valicenti said. “Clearly, the CCR score may provide highly precise, personalized estimates and justifies testing in tiered and appropriately powered noninferiority studies according to NCCN risk groups. We eagerly await the completion and reporting of such trials so that we have a more personalized approach to treating men with prostate cancer.”
The current study was funded by Myriad Genetics, the company that developed the Prolaris test. Dr. Tward disclosed relationships with Myriad Genetics, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Janssen Scientific Affairs, and Merck. Dr. Valicenti has no disclosures.
The score can identify patients in whom the risk of metastasis after dose-escalated radiation is so small that adding ADT no longer makes clinical sense, according to investigator Jonathan Tward, MD, PhD, of the Genitourinary Cancer Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
His group’s study, which included 741 patients, showed that, below a CCR score of 2.112, the 10-year risk of metastasis was 4.2% with radiation therapy (RT) alone and 3.9% with the addition of ADT.
“Whether you have RT alone, RT plus any duration of ADT, insufficient duration ADT, or sufficient ADT duration by guideline standard, the risk of metastasis never exceeds 5% at 10 years” even in high- and very-high-risk men, Dr. Tward said.
He and his team found that half the men in their study with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, 20% with high-risk disease, and 5% with very-high-risk disease scored below the CCR threshold.
This implies that, for many men, ADT after radiation “adds unnecessary morbidity for an extremely small absolute risk reduction in metastasis-free survival,” Dr. Tward said at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, where he presented the findings (Abstract 195).
Value of CCR
The CCR score tells you if the relative metastasis risk reduction with ADT after radiation – about 50% based on clinical trials – translates to an absolute risk reduction that would matter, Dr. Tward said in an interview.
“Each patient has in their own mind what that risk reduction is that works for them,” he added.
For some patients, a 1%-2% drop in absolute risk is worth it, he said, but most patients wouldn’t be willing to endure the side effects of hormone therapy if the absolute benefit is less than 5%.
The CCR score is a validated prognosticator of metastasis and death in localized prostate cancer. It’s an amalgam of traditional clinical risk factors from the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score and the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score, which measures expression of cell-cycle proliferation genes for a sense of how quickly tumor cells are dividing.
The CCP test is available commercially as Prolaris. It is used mostly to make the call between active surveillance and treatment, Dr. Tward explained, “but I had a hunch this off-the-shelf test would be very good at” helping with ADT decisions after radiation.
‘Uncomfortable’ findings, barriers to acceptance
“People are going to be very uncomfortable with these findings because it’s been ingrained in our heads for the past 20-30 years that you must use hormone therapy with high-risk prostate cancer, and you should use hormone therapy with intermediate risk,” Dr. Tward said.
“It took me a while to believe my own data, but we have used this test for several years to help men decide if they would like to have hormone therapy after radiation. Patients clearly benefit from this information,” he said.
The 2.112 cut point for CCR was determined from a prior study that was presented at GUCS 2020 (Abstract 346) and recently accepted for publication.
In the validation study Dr. Tward presented at GUCS 2021, 70% of patients had intermediate-risk disease, and 30% had high- or very-high-risk disease according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria.
All 741 patients received RT equivalent to at least 75.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, with 84% getting or exceeding 79.2 Gy. About half the men (53%) had ADT after RT.
Genetic testing was done on stored biopsy samples years after the men were treated. Half of them were below the CCR threshold of 2.112. For those above it, the 10-year risk of metastasis was 25.3%.
CCR outperformed CCP alone, CAPRA alone, and NCCN risk groupings for predicting metastasis risk after RT.
Though this validation study was “successful,” additional research is needed, according to study discussant Richard Valicenti, MD, of the University of California, Davis.
“Widespread acceptance for routine use faces challenges since no biomarker has been prospectively tested or shown to improve long-term outcome,” Dr. Valicenti said. “Clearly, the CCR score may provide highly precise, personalized estimates and justifies testing in tiered and appropriately powered noninferiority studies according to NCCN risk groups. We eagerly await the completion and reporting of such trials so that we have a more personalized approach to treating men with prostate cancer.”
The current study was funded by Myriad Genetics, the company that developed the Prolaris test. Dr. Tward disclosed relationships with Myriad Genetics, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Janssen Scientific Affairs, and Merck. Dr. Valicenti has no disclosures.
The score can identify patients in whom the risk of metastasis after dose-escalated radiation is so small that adding ADT no longer makes clinical sense, according to investigator Jonathan Tward, MD, PhD, of the Genitourinary Cancer Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
His group’s study, which included 741 patients, showed that, below a CCR score of 2.112, the 10-year risk of metastasis was 4.2% with radiation therapy (RT) alone and 3.9% with the addition of ADT.
“Whether you have RT alone, RT plus any duration of ADT, insufficient duration ADT, or sufficient ADT duration by guideline standard, the risk of metastasis never exceeds 5% at 10 years” even in high- and very-high-risk men, Dr. Tward said.
He and his team found that half the men in their study with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease, 20% with high-risk disease, and 5% with very-high-risk disease scored below the CCR threshold.
This implies that, for many men, ADT after radiation “adds unnecessary morbidity for an extremely small absolute risk reduction in metastasis-free survival,” Dr. Tward said at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, where he presented the findings (Abstract 195).
Value of CCR
The CCR score tells you if the relative metastasis risk reduction with ADT after radiation – about 50% based on clinical trials – translates to an absolute risk reduction that would matter, Dr. Tward said in an interview.
“Each patient has in their own mind what that risk reduction is that works for them,” he added.
For some patients, a 1%-2% drop in absolute risk is worth it, he said, but most patients wouldn’t be willing to endure the side effects of hormone therapy if the absolute benefit is less than 5%.
The CCR score is a validated prognosticator of metastasis and death in localized prostate cancer. It’s an amalgam of traditional clinical risk factors from the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score and the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score, which measures expression of cell-cycle proliferation genes for a sense of how quickly tumor cells are dividing.
The CCP test is available commercially as Prolaris. It is used mostly to make the call between active surveillance and treatment, Dr. Tward explained, “but I had a hunch this off-the-shelf test would be very good at” helping with ADT decisions after radiation.
‘Uncomfortable’ findings, barriers to acceptance
“People are going to be very uncomfortable with these findings because it’s been ingrained in our heads for the past 20-30 years that you must use hormone therapy with high-risk prostate cancer, and you should use hormone therapy with intermediate risk,” Dr. Tward said.
“It took me a while to believe my own data, but we have used this test for several years to help men decide if they would like to have hormone therapy after radiation. Patients clearly benefit from this information,” he said.
The 2.112 cut point for CCR was determined from a prior study that was presented at GUCS 2020 (Abstract 346) and recently accepted for publication.
In the validation study Dr. Tward presented at GUCS 2021, 70% of patients had intermediate-risk disease, and 30% had high- or very-high-risk disease according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria.
All 741 patients received RT equivalent to at least 75.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, with 84% getting or exceeding 79.2 Gy. About half the men (53%) had ADT after RT.
Genetic testing was done on stored biopsy samples years after the men were treated. Half of them were below the CCR threshold of 2.112. For those above it, the 10-year risk of metastasis was 25.3%.
CCR outperformed CCP alone, CAPRA alone, and NCCN risk groupings for predicting metastasis risk after RT.
Though this validation study was “successful,” additional research is needed, according to study discussant Richard Valicenti, MD, of the University of California, Davis.
“Widespread acceptance for routine use faces challenges since no biomarker has been prospectively tested or shown to improve long-term outcome,” Dr. Valicenti said. “Clearly, the CCR score may provide highly precise, personalized estimates and justifies testing in tiered and appropriately powered noninferiority studies according to NCCN risk groups. We eagerly await the completion and reporting of such trials so that we have a more personalized approach to treating men with prostate cancer.”
The current study was funded by Myriad Genetics, the company that developed the Prolaris test. Dr. Tward disclosed relationships with Myriad Genetics, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Janssen Scientific Affairs, and Merck. Dr. Valicenti has no disclosures.
FROM GUCS 2021
Liquid vs. tissue biopsy in advanced prostate cancer: Why not both?
The type and frequency of genomic alterations observed were largely similar in ctDNA and tissue, and there was high concordance for BRCA1/2 alterations. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of ctDNA detected more acquired resistance alterations, which included novel androgen receptor (AR)–activating variants. In fact, alterations in nine genes were significantly enriched in ctDNA, but some of these alterations may be attributable to clonal hematopoiesis and not the tumor.
Still, the researchers concluded that CGP of ctDNA could complement tissue-based CGP.
“This is the largest study of mCRPC plasma samples conducted to date, and CGP of ctDNA recapitulated the genomic landscape detected in tissue biopsies,” said investigator Hanna Tukachinsky, PhD, from Foundation Medicine, the company that developed the liquid biopsy tests used in this study.
“The large percentage of patients with rich genomic signal from ctDNA and the sensitive, specific detection of BRCA1/2 alterations position liquid biopsy as a compelling clinical complement to tissue CGP for patients with mCRPC.”
Dr. Tukachinsky presented results from this study at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 25). The results were also published in Clinical Cancer Research, but the following data are from the meeting presentation.
ctDNA profiling proves feasible, comparable
CGP was performed on 3,334 liquid biopsy samples and 2,006 tissue samples from patients with mCRPC, including patients in the TRITON2 and TRITON3 trials.
The plasma samples were profiled using FoundationACT, which had a panel of 62 genes, or FoundationOne Liquid CDx, which had a panel of 70 genes.
Most of the liquid biopsy samples – 94% – had detectable ctDNA, and the median ctDNA fraction was 7.5%.
“One of the most important findings in this study is the fact that the majority of patients with advanced prostate cancer – 94% of them – have abundant ctDNA,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
“The overall landscape we detected in ctDNA highly resembles landscapes reported in tissue-based CGP studies of mCRPC,” she added.
ctDNA results showed a high percentage of TP53 and AR alterations, as well as alterations in DNA repair genes (ATM, CHEK2, BRCA2, and CDK12), PI3 kinase components (PTEN, PIK3CA, and AKT1), and WNT components (APC and CTNNB1).
“It should be noted that the two assays did not bait for TMPRSS2-ERT fusions or SPOP ... and we’re missing homozygous deletions, which affects the frequency we detect PTEN, RB1, and BRCA alterations,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
When the researchers compared results from the 3,334 liquid biopsy samples and the 2,006 tissue samples, they found that most genes were altered at similar rates.
However, nine genes were significantly enriched in ctDNA – AR, TP53, ATM, CHEK2, NF1, TERT, JAK2, IDH2, and GNAS.
Dr. Tukachinsky noted that JAK2, GNAS, and IDH2 alterations are rarely detected in mCRPC tissue and are likely attributable to clonal hematopoiesis. Alterations in TERT and NF1, as well as some of the alterations in ATM and CHEK2, might also be attributed to clonal hematopoiesis, she added.
Rare and novel AR alterations
“ctDNA detected more acquired resistance genomic alterations than tissue, including novel and rare AR-activating variants,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
She noted that F877L/T878A, a compound mutant that has been shown to confer synergistic resistance to enzalutamide, was found in 11 patients.
Similarly, “completely novel” in-frame mutations spanning residues H875 to T878 were found in 11 patients, and each shifted S885 into the T878 position.
“Although these require more experiments to prove that they are activating, their repeated appearance in different patients with mCRPC and alignment of the serine residues is highly suggestive that they are activating,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
The researchers also found, in 160 patients, AR rearrangements that truncate the reading frame just after exon 3 to yield a receptor with an intact DNA binding domain but without a ligand binding domain.
“These truncated receptors have been demonstrated to confer resistance to AR signaling inhibitors and drive transcription of the AR target genes,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
BRCA1/2: High concordance
To further assess concordance between ctDNA and tissue, Dr. Tukachinsky and colleagues evaluated a subset of 837 patients with matched tissue and liquid biopsies.
The researchers observed high concordance in BRCA1/2 short variants and rearrangements. The positive percent agreement was 93.1%, the negative percent agreement was 97.4%, and the overall percent agreement was 97.0%.
There were 5 patients in whom BRCA1/2 alterations were detected in tissue but not ctDNA, and there were 20 patients in whom BRCA1/2 alterations were detected in ctDNA but not tissue.
The false negatives could be the result of low ctDNA fraction, a minor clone, or filtering out by post analytics, said study discussant Silke Gillessen, MD, of the Institute of Oncology of Southern Switzerland in Bellinzona. She also postulated that the false positives could be explained by clonal hematopoiesis or metastases from a subclone.
Implications for practice
This study showed that liquid and tissue biopsies can perform comparably in identifying patients with BRCA1/2 variants who may benefit from PARP inhibition, Dr. Tukachinsky noted. Additionally, ctDNA revealed novel AR variants that may be driving resistance to AR-signaling inhibitors. However, the presence of alterations that may derive from clonal hematopoiesis suggests ctDNA results should be interpreted with some caution, she added.
“NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines have recently changed to include liquid biopsy as an option. There’s definitely some skepticism about liquid biopsy …. That said, liquid biopsy is also a pretty powerful tool,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
“We are not advocating liquid biopsy over tissue. In the cases where tissue’s not available, or if you have a primary, in some cases, liquid could serve as a good complement to give you the full picture of what’s going on in the tumor,” she added.
“For the time being, tissue will still be our gold standard,” Dr. Gillessen said. “And if we can’t get the tissue tested, that will be then maybe a point for the liquid biopsy.”
Dr. Tukachinsky’s research was funded by Foundation Medicine and Clovis Oncology. She and her colleagues disclosed relationships with both companies and a range of other companies. Dr. Gillessen disclosed relationships with Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, and several other companies as well as a patent for a biomarker method (WO 3752009138392 A1).
The type and frequency of genomic alterations observed were largely similar in ctDNA and tissue, and there was high concordance for BRCA1/2 alterations. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of ctDNA detected more acquired resistance alterations, which included novel androgen receptor (AR)–activating variants. In fact, alterations in nine genes were significantly enriched in ctDNA, but some of these alterations may be attributable to clonal hematopoiesis and not the tumor.
Still, the researchers concluded that CGP of ctDNA could complement tissue-based CGP.
“This is the largest study of mCRPC plasma samples conducted to date, and CGP of ctDNA recapitulated the genomic landscape detected in tissue biopsies,” said investigator Hanna Tukachinsky, PhD, from Foundation Medicine, the company that developed the liquid biopsy tests used in this study.
“The large percentage of patients with rich genomic signal from ctDNA and the sensitive, specific detection of BRCA1/2 alterations position liquid biopsy as a compelling clinical complement to tissue CGP for patients with mCRPC.”
Dr. Tukachinsky presented results from this study at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 25). The results were also published in Clinical Cancer Research, but the following data are from the meeting presentation.
ctDNA profiling proves feasible, comparable
CGP was performed on 3,334 liquid biopsy samples and 2,006 tissue samples from patients with mCRPC, including patients in the TRITON2 and TRITON3 trials.
The plasma samples were profiled using FoundationACT, which had a panel of 62 genes, or FoundationOne Liquid CDx, which had a panel of 70 genes.
Most of the liquid biopsy samples – 94% – had detectable ctDNA, and the median ctDNA fraction was 7.5%.
“One of the most important findings in this study is the fact that the majority of patients with advanced prostate cancer – 94% of them – have abundant ctDNA,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
“The overall landscape we detected in ctDNA highly resembles landscapes reported in tissue-based CGP studies of mCRPC,” she added.
ctDNA results showed a high percentage of TP53 and AR alterations, as well as alterations in DNA repair genes (ATM, CHEK2, BRCA2, and CDK12), PI3 kinase components (PTEN, PIK3CA, and AKT1), and WNT components (APC and CTNNB1).
“It should be noted that the two assays did not bait for TMPRSS2-ERT fusions or SPOP ... and we’re missing homozygous deletions, which affects the frequency we detect PTEN, RB1, and BRCA alterations,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
When the researchers compared results from the 3,334 liquid biopsy samples and the 2,006 tissue samples, they found that most genes were altered at similar rates.
However, nine genes were significantly enriched in ctDNA – AR, TP53, ATM, CHEK2, NF1, TERT, JAK2, IDH2, and GNAS.
Dr. Tukachinsky noted that JAK2, GNAS, and IDH2 alterations are rarely detected in mCRPC tissue and are likely attributable to clonal hematopoiesis. Alterations in TERT and NF1, as well as some of the alterations in ATM and CHEK2, might also be attributed to clonal hematopoiesis, she added.
Rare and novel AR alterations
“ctDNA detected more acquired resistance genomic alterations than tissue, including novel and rare AR-activating variants,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
She noted that F877L/T878A, a compound mutant that has been shown to confer synergistic resistance to enzalutamide, was found in 11 patients.
Similarly, “completely novel” in-frame mutations spanning residues H875 to T878 were found in 11 patients, and each shifted S885 into the T878 position.
“Although these require more experiments to prove that they are activating, their repeated appearance in different patients with mCRPC and alignment of the serine residues is highly suggestive that they are activating,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
The researchers also found, in 160 patients, AR rearrangements that truncate the reading frame just after exon 3 to yield a receptor with an intact DNA binding domain but without a ligand binding domain.
“These truncated receptors have been demonstrated to confer resistance to AR signaling inhibitors and drive transcription of the AR target genes,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
BRCA1/2: High concordance
To further assess concordance between ctDNA and tissue, Dr. Tukachinsky and colleagues evaluated a subset of 837 patients with matched tissue and liquid biopsies.
The researchers observed high concordance in BRCA1/2 short variants and rearrangements. The positive percent agreement was 93.1%, the negative percent agreement was 97.4%, and the overall percent agreement was 97.0%.
There were 5 patients in whom BRCA1/2 alterations were detected in tissue but not ctDNA, and there were 20 patients in whom BRCA1/2 alterations were detected in ctDNA but not tissue.
The false negatives could be the result of low ctDNA fraction, a minor clone, or filtering out by post analytics, said study discussant Silke Gillessen, MD, of the Institute of Oncology of Southern Switzerland in Bellinzona. She also postulated that the false positives could be explained by clonal hematopoiesis or metastases from a subclone.
Implications for practice
This study showed that liquid and tissue biopsies can perform comparably in identifying patients with BRCA1/2 variants who may benefit from PARP inhibition, Dr. Tukachinsky noted. Additionally, ctDNA revealed novel AR variants that may be driving resistance to AR-signaling inhibitors. However, the presence of alterations that may derive from clonal hematopoiesis suggests ctDNA results should be interpreted with some caution, she added.
“NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines have recently changed to include liquid biopsy as an option. There’s definitely some skepticism about liquid biopsy …. That said, liquid biopsy is also a pretty powerful tool,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
“We are not advocating liquid biopsy over tissue. In the cases where tissue’s not available, or if you have a primary, in some cases, liquid could serve as a good complement to give you the full picture of what’s going on in the tumor,” she added.
“For the time being, tissue will still be our gold standard,” Dr. Gillessen said. “And if we can’t get the tissue tested, that will be then maybe a point for the liquid biopsy.”
Dr. Tukachinsky’s research was funded by Foundation Medicine and Clovis Oncology. She and her colleagues disclosed relationships with both companies and a range of other companies. Dr. Gillessen disclosed relationships with Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, and several other companies as well as a patent for a biomarker method (WO 3752009138392 A1).
The type and frequency of genomic alterations observed were largely similar in ctDNA and tissue, and there was high concordance for BRCA1/2 alterations. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of ctDNA detected more acquired resistance alterations, which included novel androgen receptor (AR)–activating variants. In fact, alterations in nine genes were significantly enriched in ctDNA, but some of these alterations may be attributable to clonal hematopoiesis and not the tumor.
Still, the researchers concluded that CGP of ctDNA could complement tissue-based CGP.
“This is the largest study of mCRPC plasma samples conducted to date, and CGP of ctDNA recapitulated the genomic landscape detected in tissue biopsies,” said investigator Hanna Tukachinsky, PhD, from Foundation Medicine, the company that developed the liquid biopsy tests used in this study.
“The large percentage of patients with rich genomic signal from ctDNA and the sensitive, specific detection of BRCA1/2 alterations position liquid biopsy as a compelling clinical complement to tissue CGP for patients with mCRPC.”
Dr. Tukachinsky presented results from this study at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 25). The results were also published in Clinical Cancer Research, but the following data are from the meeting presentation.
ctDNA profiling proves feasible, comparable
CGP was performed on 3,334 liquid biopsy samples and 2,006 tissue samples from patients with mCRPC, including patients in the TRITON2 and TRITON3 trials.
The plasma samples were profiled using FoundationACT, which had a panel of 62 genes, or FoundationOne Liquid CDx, which had a panel of 70 genes.
Most of the liquid biopsy samples – 94% – had detectable ctDNA, and the median ctDNA fraction was 7.5%.
“One of the most important findings in this study is the fact that the majority of patients with advanced prostate cancer – 94% of them – have abundant ctDNA,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
“The overall landscape we detected in ctDNA highly resembles landscapes reported in tissue-based CGP studies of mCRPC,” she added.
ctDNA results showed a high percentage of TP53 and AR alterations, as well as alterations in DNA repair genes (ATM, CHEK2, BRCA2, and CDK12), PI3 kinase components (PTEN, PIK3CA, and AKT1), and WNT components (APC and CTNNB1).
“It should be noted that the two assays did not bait for TMPRSS2-ERT fusions or SPOP ... and we’re missing homozygous deletions, which affects the frequency we detect PTEN, RB1, and BRCA alterations,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
When the researchers compared results from the 3,334 liquid biopsy samples and the 2,006 tissue samples, they found that most genes were altered at similar rates.
However, nine genes were significantly enriched in ctDNA – AR, TP53, ATM, CHEK2, NF1, TERT, JAK2, IDH2, and GNAS.
Dr. Tukachinsky noted that JAK2, GNAS, and IDH2 alterations are rarely detected in mCRPC tissue and are likely attributable to clonal hematopoiesis. Alterations in TERT and NF1, as well as some of the alterations in ATM and CHEK2, might also be attributed to clonal hematopoiesis, she added.
Rare and novel AR alterations
“ctDNA detected more acquired resistance genomic alterations than tissue, including novel and rare AR-activating variants,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
She noted that F877L/T878A, a compound mutant that has been shown to confer synergistic resistance to enzalutamide, was found in 11 patients.
Similarly, “completely novel” in-frame mutations spanning residues H875 to T878 were found in 11 patients, and each shifted S885 into the T878 position.
“Although these require more experiments to prove that they are activating, their repeated appearance in different patients with mCRPC and alignment of the serine residues is highly suggestive that they are activating,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
The researchers also found, in 160 patients, AR rearrangements that truncate the reading frame just after exon 3 to yield a receptor with an intact DNA binding domain but without a ligand binding domain.
“These truncated receptors have been demonstrated to confer resistance to AR signaling inhibitors and drive transcription of the AR target genes,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
BRCA1/2: High concordance
To further assess concordance between ctDNA and tissue, Dr. Tukachinsky and colleagues evaluated a subset of 837 patients with matched tissue and liquid biopsies.
The researchers observed high concordance in BRCA1/2 short variants and rearrangements. The positive percent agreement was 93.1%, the negative percent agreement was 97.4%, and the overall percent agreement was 97.0%.
There were 5 patients in whom BRCA1/2 alterations were detected in tissue but not ctDNA, and there were 20 patients in whom BRCA1/2 alterations were detected in ctDNA but not tissue.
The false negatives could be the result of low ctDNA fraction, a minor clone, or filtering out by post analytics, said study discussant Silke Gillessen, MD, of the Institute of Oncology of Southern Switzerland in Bellinzona. She also postulated that the false positives could be explained by clonal hematopoiesis or metastases from a subclone.
Implications for practice
This study showed that liquid and tissue biopsies can perform comparably in identifying patients with BRCA1/2 variants who may benefit from PARP inhibition, Dr. Tukachinsky noted. Additionally, ctDNA revealed novel AR variants that may be driving resistance to AR-signaling inhibitors. However, the presence of alterations that may derive from clonal hematopoiesis suggests ctDNA results should be interpreted with some caution, she added.
“NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines have recently changed to include liquid biopsy as an option. There’s definitely some skepticism about liquid biopsy …. That said, liquid biopsy is also a pretty powerful tool,” Dr. Tukachinsky said.
“We are not advocating liquid biopsy over tissue. In the cases where tissue’s not available, or if you have a primary, in some cases, liquid could serve as a good complement to give you the full picture of what’s going on in the tumor,” she added.
“For the time being, tissue will still be our gold standard,” Dr. Gillessen said. “And if we can’t get the tissue tested, that will be then maybe a point for the liquid biopsy.”
Dr. Tukachinsky’s research was funded by Foundation Medicine and Clovis Oncology. She and her colleagues disclosed relationships with both companies and a range of other companies. Dr. Gillessen disclosed relationships with Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, and several other companies as well as a patent for a biomarker method (WO 3752009138392 A1).
FROM GUCS 2021
Androgen annihilation strategy prolongs rPFS in mCRPC
Adding the androgen receptor antagonist to standard care – abiraterone acetate and prednisone – prolonged radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by 6.0 months at the trial’s primary analysis and by 7.4 months at the trial’s final analysis. Adverse events were consistent with the drug’s known safety profile.
These findings were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 9).
“mCRPC is frequently driven by activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoral androgens,” said investigator Dana E. Rathkopf, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Therefore, androgen annihilation using agents with distinct mechanisms that target both pathways is attractive.
With this in mind, investigators conducted the ACIS trial. They enrolled 982 patients who had mCRPC that had progressed on androgen deprivation therapy but who had not received chemotherapy or androgen-signaling inhibitors for castration-resistant disease.
Patients were randomized evenly to apalutamide or placebo, each given with abiraterone plus prednisone. All patients continued their ongoing androgen deprivation therapy.
Study outcomes
The trial met its primary endpoint, Dr. Rathkopf reported. In the primary analysis, conducted at a median follow-up of 25.7 months, the median investigator-assessed rPFS was 22.6 months with apalutamide and 16.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0001).
Results held up at the final analysis, conducted at a median follow-up of 54.8 months. At that time, the median investigator-assessed rPFS was 24.0 months with apalutamide and 16.6 months with placebo (HR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.83). The median overall survival was 36.2 months and 33.7 months, respectively, a nonsignificant difference.
For both rPFS and overall survival, there were trends toward benefit in two clinical subgroups typically having poorer prognosis – men with visceral metastases and men aged 75 years and older. In analyses of biomarkers, benefit was greater in men whose tumors were luminal subtype and in patients who had average or high androgen receptor activity.
The apalutamide and placebo groups did not differ significantly on time to second PFS, initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, chronic opioid use, and pain progression. However, apalutamide therapy increased the percentage of men who achieved a confirmed decline of at least 50% in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (79.5% vs. 72.9%) and an undetectable PSA level at any time during treatment (24.6% vs. 19.2%).
Apalutamide was associated with a higher rate of grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (63.3% vs. 56.2%), including fatigue, hypertension, rash, cardiac disorders, and fracture/osteoporosis.
Health-related quality of life declined over time in both treatment groups, although not to a clinically meaningful extent.
“Clinical and biomarker subgroups identified in this analysis will need further exploration to better delineate who might benefit most from the addition of apalutamide to abiraterone and prednisone in mCRPC,” Dr. Rathkopf said, noting that she currently looks at the whole picture when deciding whether to use the combination.
“It’s not just luminal subtype or Gleason grade or age. You have to look at all of these variables together. There are definitely patients that are more suited to a more aggressive approach early on,” she elaborated. “And some patients want to be more aggressive. A progression-free survival gain of 6 or 7 months up front is meaningful to them. A longer time to progression and a more profound decline in PSA will allow them to possibly enjoy their life more during this treatment period, balanced against whatever toxicities we may see with the combination.”
Practice changing?
To its merit, the ACIS trial was large; used an active, standard-of-care comparator; and had a blinded design, said invited discussant Joshi J. Alumkal, MD, of the Rogel Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
However, “because of the increase in toxicity, cost, similar radiographic progression-free survival 2, and the lack of overall survival benefit at this time, and in light of the clinical insights from other studies with combined or sequential ARSI [androgen receptor signaling inhibitor] treatment, I do not believe results from ACIS change practice at this time,” he said.
Additional research into the varied molecular pathways driving this disease will be essential for tailoring therapy to improve clinical outcomes for various patient subsets, Dr. Alumkal maintained.
“To move the needle in CRPC, it is important to understand the biology in those patients who derive the least benefit from ARSI treatment,” he elaborated. “Understanding the key drivers in these tumors may provide a roadmap for how to address the most aggressive subsets of CRPC tumors that appear to do quite poorly, even with ARSI escalation as done in SPARTAN or ACIS.”
The ACIS study was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Rathkopf disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Celgene, Ferring, Genentech/Roche, Medivation, Millennium, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and TRACON Pharma. Dr. Alumkal disclosed relationships with Dendreon, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, Gilead Sciences, and Zenith Epigenetics.
Adding the androgen receptor antagonist to standard care – abiraterone acetate and prednisone – prolonged radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by 6.0 months at the trial’s primary analysis and by 7.4 months at the trial’s final analysis. Adverse events were consistent with the drug’s known safety profile.
These findings were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 9).
“mCRPC is frequently driven by activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoral androgens,” said investigator Dana E. Rathkopf, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Therefore, androgen annihilation using agents with distinct mechanisms that target both pathways is attractive.
With this in mind, investigators conducted the ACIS trial. They enrolled 982 patients who had mCRPC that had progressed on androgen deprivation therapy but who had not received chemotherapy or androgen-signaling inhibitors for castration-resistant disease.
Patients were randomized evenly to apalutamide or placebo, each given with abiraterone plus prednisone. All patients continued their ongoing androgen deprivation therapy.
Study outcomes
The trial met its primary endpoint, Dr. Rathkopf reported. In the primary analysis, conducted at a median follow-up of 25.7 months, the median investigator-assessed rPFS was 22.6 months with apalutamide and 16.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0001).
Results held up at the final analysis, conducted at a median follow-up of 54.8 months. At that time, the median investigator-assessed rPFS was 24.0 months with apalutamide and 16.6 months with placebo (HR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.83). The median overall survival was 36.2 months and 33.7 months, respectively, a nonsignificant difference.
For both rPFS and overall survival, there were trends toward benefit in two clinical subgroups typically having poorer prognosis – men with visceral metastases and men aged 75 years and older. In analyses of biomarkers, benefit was greater in men whose tumors were luminal subtype and in patients who had average or high androgen receptor activity.
The apalutamide and placebo groups did not differ significantly on time to second PFS, initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, chronic opioid use, and pain progression. However, apalutamide therapy increased the percentage of men who achieved a confirmed decline of at least 50% in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (79.5% vs. 72.9%) and an undetectable PSA level at any time during treatment (24.6% vs. 19.2%).
Apalutamide was associated with a higher rate of grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (63.3% vs. 56.2%), including fatigue, hypertension, rash, cardiac disorders, and fracture/osteoporosis.
Health-related quality of life declined over time in both treatment groups, although not to a clinically meaningful extent.
“Clinical and biomarker subgroups identified in this analysis will need further exploration to better delineate who might benefit most from the addition of apalutamide to abiraterone and prednisone in mCRPC,” Dr. Rathkopf said, noting that she currently looks at the whole picture when deciding whether to use the combination.
“It’s not just luminal subtype or Gleason grade or age. You have to look at all of these variables together. There are definitely patients that are more suited to a more aggressive approach early on,” she elaborated. “And some patients want to be more aggressive. A progression-free survival gain of 6 or 7 months up front is meaningful to them. A longer time to progression and a more profound decline in PSA will allow them to possibly enjoy their life more during this treatment period, balanced against whatever toxicities we may see with the combination.”
Practice changing?
To its merit, the ACIS trial was large; used an active, standard-of-care comparator; and had a blinded design, said invited discussant Joshi J. Alumkal, MD, of the Rogel Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
However, “because of the increase in toxicity, cost, similar radiographic progression-free survival 2, and the lack of overall survival benefit at this time, and in light of the clinical insights from other studies with combined or sequential ARSI [androgen receptor signaling inhibitor] treatment, I do not believe results from ACIS change practice at this time,” he said.
Additional research into the varied molecular pathways driving this disease will be essential for tailoring therapy to improve clinical outcomes for various patient subsets, Dr. Alumkal maintained.
“To move the needle in CRPC, it is important to understand the biology in those patients who derive the least benefit from ARSI treatment,” he elaborated. “Understanding the key drivers in these tumors may provide a roadmap for how to address the most aggressive subsets of CRPC tumors that appear to do quite poorly, even with ARSI escalation as done in SPARTAN or ACIS.”
The ACIS study was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Rathkopf disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Celgene, Ferring, Genentech/Roche, Medivation, Millennium, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and TRACON Pharma. Dr. Alumkal disclosed relationships with Dendreon, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, Gilead Sciences, and Zenith Epigenetics.
Adding the androgen receptor antagonist to standard care – abiraterone acetate and prednisone – prolonged radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by 6.0 months at the trial’s primary analysis and by 7.4 months at the trial’s final analysis. Adverse events were consistent with the drug’s known safety profile.
These findings were reported at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 9).
“mCRPC is frequently driven by activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoral androgens,” said investigator Dana E. Rathkopf, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
Therefore, androgen annihilation using agents with distinct mechanisms that target both pathways is attractive.
With this in mind, investigators conducted the ACIS trial. They enrolled 982 patients who had mCRPC that had progressed on androgen deprivation therapy but who had not received chemotherapy or androgen-signaling inhibitors for castration-resistant disease.
Patients were randomized evenly to apalutamide or placebo, each given with abiraterone plus prednisone. All patients continued their ongoing androgen deprivation therapy.
Study outcomes
The trial met its primary endpoint, Dr. Rathkopf reported. In the primary analysis, conducted at a median follow-up of 25.7 months, the median investigator-assessed rPFS was 22.6 months with apalutamide and 16.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0001).
Results held up at the final analysis, conducted at a median follow-up of 54.8 months. At that time, the median investigator-assessed rPFS was 24.0 months with apalutamide and 16.6 months with placebo (HR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.83). The median overall survival was 36.2 months and 33.7 months, respectively, a nonsignificant difference.
For both rPFS and overall survival, there were trends toward benefit in two clinical subgroups typically having poorer prognosis – men with visceral metastases and men aged 75 years and older. In analyses of biomarkers, benefit was greater in men whose tumors were luminal subtype and in patients who had average or high androgen receptor activity.
The apalutamide and placebo groups did not differ significantly on time to second PFS, initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, chronic opioid use, and pain progression. However, apalutamide therapy increased the percentage of men who achieved a confirmed decline of at least 50% in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (79.5% vs. 72.9%) and an undetectable PSA level at any time during treatment (24.6% vs. 19.2%).
Apalutamide was associated with a higher rate of grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (63.3% vs. 56.2%), including fatigue, hypertension, rash, cardiac disorders, and fracture/osteoporosis.
Health-related quality of life declined over time in both treatment groups, although not to a clinically meaningful extent.
“Clinical and biomarker subgroups identified in this analysis will need further exploration to better delineate who might benefit most from the addition of apalutamide to abiraterone and prednisone in mCRPC,” Dr. Rathkopf said, noting that she currently looks at the whole picture when deciding whether to use the combination.
“It’s not just luminal subtype or Gleason grade or age. You have to look at all of these variables together. There are definitely patients that are more suited to a more aggressive approach early on,” she elaborated. “And some patients want to be more aggressive. A progression-free survival gain of 6 or 7 months up front is meaningful to them. A longer time to progression and a more profound decline in PSA will allow them to possibly enjoy their life more during this treatment period, balanced against whatever toxicities we may see with the combination.”
Practice changing?
To its merit, the ACIS trial was large; used an active, standard-of-care comparator; and had a blinded design, said invited discussant Joshi J. Alumkal, MD, of the Rogel Cancer Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
However, “because of the increase in toxicity, cost, similar radiographic progression-free survival 2, and the lack of overall survival benefit at this time, and in light of the clinical insights from other studies with combined or sequential ARSI [androgen receptor signaling inhibitor] treatment, I do not believe results from ACIS change practice at this time,” he said.
Additional research into the varied molecular pathways driving this disease will be essential for tailoring therapy to improve clinical outcomes for various patient subsets, Dr. Alumkal maintained.
“To move the needle in CRPC, it is important to understand the biology in those patients who derive the least benefit from ARSI treatment,” he elaborated. “Understanding the key drivers in these tumors may provide a roadmap for how to address the most aggressive subsets of CRPC tumors that appear to do quite poorly, even with ARSI escalation as done in SPARTAN or ACIS.”
The ACIS study was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Rathkopf disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Celgene, Ferring, Genentech/Roche, Medivation, Millennium, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and TRACON Pharma. Dr. Alumkal disclosed relationships with Dendreon, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, Gilead Sciences, and Zenith Epigenetics.
FROM GUCS 2021
Declines in PSA screening may account for rise in metastatic prostate cancers
Between 2008 and 2016, the mean incidence of prostate cancers that were metastatic at diagnosis increased from 6.4 to 9.0 per 100,000 men. During the same period, the mean percentage of men undergoing PSA screening decreased from 61.8% to 50.5%, Vidit Sharma, MD, reported in a poster session at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 228).
A random-effects linear regression model demonstrated that longitudinal reductions across states in PSA screening were indeed associated with increased age-adjusted incidence of metastatic prostate cancer, said Dr. Sharma, the lead author of the study and a health services fellow in urologic oncology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The regression coefficient per 100,000 men was 14.9, confirming that states with greater declines in screening had greater increases in prostate cancers that were metastatic at diagnosis, he added, noting that, “overall, variation in PSA screening explained 27% of the longitudinal variation in metastatic disease at diagnosis.”
Dr. Sharma and colleagues had reviewed North American Association of Central Cancer Registries data from 2002 to 2016 for each state and extracted survey-weighted PSA screening estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The researchers noted wide variations in screening across states, but they said across-the-board declines were evident beginning in 2010, marking a “worrisome consequence that needs attention.”
Robert Dreicer, MD, deputy director of the University of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville, agreed, noting in a press statement that the findings suggest reduced PSA screening may come at the cost of more men presenting with metastatic disease.
“Patients should discuss the risks and benefits associated with PSA screening with their doctor to identify the best approach for them,” Dr. Dreicer said.
PSA screening has been shown to reduce prostate cancer metastasis and mortality, but screening has also been linked to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. As a result, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) “found insufficient evidence to recommend PSA screening in 2008 and later recommended against PSA screening in 2012,” Dr. Sharma said.
Several studies subsequently showed a rise in metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis, but the role of PSA screening reductions in those findings was unclear. In 2018, the USPSTF updated its recommendations, stating that men aged 55-69 years should make “an individual decision about whether to be screened after a conversation with their clinician about the potential benefits and harms.”
The task force recommended against PSA screening in men older than 70 years.
The current study “strengthens the epidemiological evidence that reductions in PSA screening may be responsible for at least some of the increase in metastatic prostate cancer diagnoses,” Dr. Sharma said. He added that he and his coauthors support shared decision-making policies to optimize PSA screening approaches to reduce the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer, such as those recommended in the 2018 USPSTF update.
Dr. Sharma disclosed research funding from the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Fellowship. He and his colleagues had no other disclosures.
Between 2008 and 2016, the mean incidence of prostate cancers that were metastatic at diagnosis increased from 6.4 to 9.0 per 100,000 men. During the same period, the mean percentage of men undergoing PSA screening decreased from 61.8% to 50.5%, Vidit Sharma, MD, reported in a poster session at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 228).
A random-effects linear regression model demonstrated that longitudinal reductions across states in PSA screening were indeed associated with increased age-adjusted incidence of metastatic prostate cancer, said Dr. Sharma, the lead author of the study and a health services fellow in urologic oncology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The regression coefficient per 100,000 men was 14.9, confirming that states with greater declines in screening had greater increases in prostate cancers that were metastatic at diagnosis, he added, noting that, “overall, variation in PSA screening explained 27% of the longitudinal variation in metastatic disease at diagnosis.”
Dr. Sharma and colleagues had reviewed North American Association of Central Cancer Registries data from 2002 to 2016 for each state and extracted survey-weighted PSA screening estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The researchers noted wide variations in screening across states, but they said across-the-board declines were evident beginning in 2010, marking a “worrisome consequence that needs attention.”
Robert Dreicer, MD, deputy director of the University of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville, agreed, noting in a press statement that the findings suggest reduced PSA screening may come at the cost of more men presenting with metastatic disease.
“Patients should discuss the risks and benefits associated with PSA screening with their doctor to identify the best approach for them,” Dr. Dreicer said.
PSA screening has been shown to reduce prostate cancer metastasis and mortality, but screening has also been linked to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. As a result, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) “found insufficient evidence to recommend PSA screening in 2008 and later recommended against PSA screening in 2012,” Dr. Sharma said.
Several studies subsequently showed a rise in metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis, but the role of PSA screening reductions in those findings was unclear. In 2018, the USPSTF updated its recommendations, stating that men aged 55-69 years should make “an individual decision about whether to be screened after a conversation with their clinician about the potential benefits and harms.”
The task force recommended against PSA screening in men older than 70 years.
The current study “strengthens the epidemiological evidence that reductions in PSA screening may be responsible for at least some of the increase in metastatic prostate cancer diagnoses,” Dr. Sharma said. He added that he and his coauthors support shared decision-making policies to optimize PSA screening approaches to reduce the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer, such as those recommended in the 2018 USPSTF update.
Dr. Sharma disclosed research funding from the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Fellowship. He and his colleagues had no other disclosures.
Between 2008 and 2016, the mean incidence of prostate cancers that were metastatic at diagnosis increased from 6.4 to 9.0 per 100,000 men. During the same period, the mean percentage of men undergoing PSA screening decreased from 61.8% to 50.5%, Vidit Sharma, MD, reported in a poster session at the 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (Abstract 228).
A random-effects linear regression model demonstrated that longitudinal reductions across states in PSA screening were indeed associated with increased age-adjusted incidence of metastatic prostate cancer, said Dr. Sharma, the lead author of the study and a health services fellow in urologic oncology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The regression coefficient per 100,000 men was 14.9, confirming that states with greater declines in screening had greater increases in prostate cancers that were metastatic at diagnosis, he added, noting that, “overall, variation in PSA screening explained 27% of the longitudinal variation in metastatic disease at diagnosis.”
Dr. Sharma and colleagues had reviewed North American Association of Central Cancer Registries data from 2002 to 2016 for each state and extracted survey-weighted PSA screening estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The researchers noted wide variations in screening across states, but they said across-the-board declines were evident beginning in 2010, marking a “worrisome consequence that needs attention.”
Robert Dreicer, MD, deputy director of the University of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville, agreed, noting in a press statement that the findings suggest reduced PSA screening may come at the cost of more men presenting with metastatic disease.
“Patients should discuss the risks and benefits associated with PSA screening with their doctor to identify the best approach for them,” Dr. Dreicer said.
PSA screening has been shown to reduce prostate cancer metastasis and mortality, but screening has also been linked to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. As a result, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) “found insufficient evidence to recommend PSA screening in 2008 and later recommended against PSA screening in 2012,” Dr. Sharma said.
Several studies subsequently showed a rise in metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis, but the role of PSA screening reductions in those findings was unclear. In 2018, the USPSTF updated its recommendations, stating that men aged 55-69 years should make “an individual decision about whether to be screened after a conversation with their clinician about the potential benefits and harms.”
The task force recommended against PSA screening in men older than 70 years.
The current study “strengthens the epidemiological evidence that reductions in PSA screening may be responsible for at least some of the increase in metastatic prostate cancer diagnoses,” Dr. Sharma said. He added that he and his coauthors support shared decision-making policies to optimize PSA screening approaches to reduce the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer, such as those recommended in the 2018 USPSTF update.
Dr. Sharma disclosed research funding from the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Fellowship. He and his colleagues had no other disclosures.
FROM GUCS 2021
Clozapine still underused in refractory schizophrenia
With the exception of clozapine, the selection of an antipsychotic medication for acute treatment is driven by side effects.
That’s a key pearl of wisdom that Stephen R. Marder, MD, shared during a discussion of key criteria for choosing an antipsychotic for patients with schizophrenia.
“It’s a decision that can have huge consequences, both to an individual’s mental health and their physical health,” Dr. Marder said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “If a patient did well and liked a prior antipsychotic, that’s usually evidence that they’ll respond again. That’s been shown numerous times. Aside from that, the largest consideration is usually adverse effects.”
In a multiple-treatments meta-analysis that compared the efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia, researchers found that an overall positive change in symptoms occurred with clozapine, compared with any other drug.
“Clozapine is not just the most effective antipsychotic for patients who are treatment resistant; it’s also the most effective antipsychotic in general populations,” said Dr. Marder, the Daniel X. Freedman Professor of Psychiatry at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The next most effective antipsychotic is amisulpride, which is not available in the U.S., although there’s a company that’s developing a formulation of amisulpride. After that, the 95% confidence intervals overlap, and the differences are probably related not to their true effectiveness but to other circumstances.”
For example, he continued, risperidone and olanzapine were developed in the 1990s. They were always compared with haloperidol and they tended to work a little bit better. “The drugs developed later on in clinical trials tended to be used in patients who were more treatment resistant,” he said. “Aside from clozapine, the differences in effectiveness are relatively small. But the differences in side effects are large.”
The meta-analysis found that haloperidol stood out as the antipsychotic most likely to cause extrapyramidal side effects. Olanzapine and clozapine stood out as causing the most weight gain, while ziprasidone and lurasidone were less likely to cause weight gain. In addition, risperidone, paliperidone, and haloperidol tended to cause the greatest elevation of prolactin levels, while aripiprazole was found to reduce prolactin levels.
“This becomes an important issue, particularly in young people when one is worried about galactorrhea in women or gynecomastia in men, which sometimes happens with risperidone or haloperidol, and to a lesser extent, sexual dysfunction,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs. “Sedation is a major consideration for clozapine and chlorpromazine, but less for other antipsychotics.”
When do you know if you’ve selected the right medication for your patient? According to a meta-analysis of 42 studies involving 7,450 patients, improvement tends to occur within the first 2 weeks of treatment. “Which means Dr. Marder said. “This has been consequential because it provides guidance for clinicians to make decisions.”
Symptoms that are likely to improve in the first couple of days include agitation and psychomotor excitement. Improvement in psychotic symptoms typically occurs in the following order: those with thought disorder symptoms tend to develop more organized thinking, those with hallucinations tend to experience a decrease the intensity and frequency of their episodes, and those with well-ingrained delusions “tend to experience fewer misinterpretations,” Dr. Marder said. “They may feel less suspicious and they may talk less about delusions.”
Dr. Marder makes it a point to evaluate the antipsychotic response of patients in 2-3 weeks. “If it’s a partial response, continue a bit longer,” he advised. “It it’s no response, switch. And, of course, if the drug isn’t tolerated well, switch.”
He advised against thinking that patients can easily be categorized as being strong responders or nonresponders. Instead, he favors viewing responsiveness to an antipsychotic along a continuum. “Ten to fifteen percent of patients will fail to remit even at first exposure to an antipsychotic medication, but it’s more common that patients will be partial responders,” Dr. Marder said. “One will have to determine whether that response is adequate or not. There’s also the idea that patients sometimes respond vigorously to an antipsychotic early on. For example, first-episode patients tend to respond very well, and they respond at substantially lower doses. But I set a high criteria that we really want patients on an antipsychotic to respond well, to being in a remission that they can live with, not just to be partially remitted.”
In an analysis of response rates, 244 patients with first-episode schizophrenia moved through two antipsychotic trials, followed by a trial with clozapine. For the first two trials, treatment consisted of risperidone followed by olanzapine, or vice versa. About 75% of patients on either drug showed an initial response. “Among those who did not respond in the first trial but were switched to either drug, the response rate was very low, averaging about 16%,” Dr. Marder said. “In other words, if somebody responds poorly to risperidone, they’re not likely to respond to olanzapine, or vice versa. I think this is true among nearly all of the antipsychotic drugs that are available. Patients tend to have sort of an idiosyncratic ability to respond to a nonclozapine antipsychotic. They may respond to one better than the other, but oftentimes they won’t respond well.” When patients in the trial were switched to clozapine, 75% showed an adequate response.
Based on the study findings and on his own clinical practice, Dr. Marder recommends trying one or two antipsychotics before prescribing clozapine. “If they haven’t responded in a couple of weeks, it’s probably good to change them to another antipsychotic,” he said. “If the patient is responding poorly they should go on to clozapine, which I think is very underutilized.”
In late 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved lumateperone, a presynaptic D2 partial agonist and a postsynaptic D2 antagonist, for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. “Its dopamine blockage doesn’t lead to increased dopamine, so it seems to work differently than other antipsychotics,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s effective at lower D2 affinity, which is similar to drugs like clozapine, and it has greater 5 HT2A:D2 antagonism.” It appears to have a relatively benign safety profile, including minimal weight gain, minimal metabolic adverse effects, and minimal extrapyramidal effects. “However, I think the jury’s out,” he added. “There is very little information about head-to-head comparisons between lumateperone and other antipsychotics.”
The new kid on the block is the Alkermes agent AKLS 3831, a combination drug of olanzapine-samidorphan, for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia and adults with bipolar I disorder. In December 2020, the FDA accepted the company’s New Drug Application and set the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of June 1, 2021. Results from a phase 2 trial demonstrated mitigation of olanzapine-induced weight gain with the opioid antagonist samidorphan. “This is not a weight-loss drug,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s just a formulation that causes less weight gain. For patients who do well on olanzapine, putting them on this combination may be helpful in preventing weight gain.”
Dr. Marder disclosed that he has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Allergan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forum, Genentech, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Roche, Sunovion, Takeda, Targacept, and Teva. He has also received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Neurocrine, and Takeda, and is a section editor for UpToDate.
With the exception of clozapine, the selection of an antipsychotic medication for acute treatment is driven by side effects.
That’s a key pearl of wisdom that Stephen R. Marder, MD, shared during a discussion of key criteria for choosing an antipsychotic for patients with schizophrenia.
“It’s a decision that can have huge consequences, both to an individual’s mental health and their physical health,” Dr. Marder said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “If a patient did well and liked a prior antipsychotic, that’s usually evidence that they’ll respond again. That’s been shown numerous times. Aside from that, the largest consideration is usually adverse effects.”
In a multiple-treatments meta-analysis that compared the efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia, researchers found that an overall positive change in symptoms occurred with clozapine, compared with any other drug.
“Clozapine is not just the most effective antipsychotic for patients who are treatment resistant; it’s also the most effective antipsychotic in general populations,” said Dr. Marder, the Daniel X. Freedman Professor of Psychiatry at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The next most effective antipsychotic is amisulpride, which is not available in the U.S., although there’s a company that’s developing a formulation of amisulpride. After that, the 95% confidence intervals overlap, and the differences are probably related not to their true effectiveness but to other circumstances.”
For example, he continued, risperidone and olanzapine were developed in the 1990s. They were always compared with haloperidol and they tended to work a little bit better. “The drugs developed later on in clinical trials tended to be used in patients who were more treatment resistant,” he said. “Aside from clozapine, the differences in effectiveness are relatively small. But the differences in side effects are large.”
The meta-analysis found that haloperidol stood out as the antipsychotic most likely to cause extrapyramidal side effects. Olanzapine and clozapine stood out as causing the most weight gain, while ziprasidone and lurasidone were less likely to cause weight gain. In addition, risperidone, paliperidone, and haloperidol tended to cause the greatest elevation of prolactin levels, while aripiprazole was found to reduce prolactin levels.
“This becomes an important issue, particularly in young people when one is worried about galactorrhea in women or gynecomastia in men, which sometimes happens with risperidone or haloperidol, and to a lesser extent, sexual dysfunction,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs. “Sedation is a major consideration for clozapine and chlorpromazine, but less for other antipsychotics.”
When do you know if you’ve selected the right medication for your patient? According to a meta-analysis of 42 studies involving 7,450 patients, improvement tends to occur within the first 2 weeks of treatment. “Which means Dr. Marder said. “This has been consequential because it provides guidance for clinicians to make decisions.”
Symptoms that are likely to improve in the first couple of days include agitation and psychomotor excitement. Improvement in psychotic symptoms typically occurs in the following order: those with thought disorder symptoms tend to develop more organized thinking, those with hallucinations tend to experience a decrease the intensity and frequency of their episodes, and those with well-ingrained delusions “tend to experience fewer misinterpretations,” Dr. Marder said. “They may feel less suspicious and they may talk less about delusions.”
Dr. Marder makes it a point to evaluate the antipsychotic response of patients in 2-3 weeks. “If it’s a partial response, continue a bit longer,” he advised. “It it’s no response, switch. And, of course, if the drug isn’t tolerated well, switch.”
He advised against thinking that patients can easily be categorized as being strong responders or nonresponders. Instead, he favors viewing responsiveness to an antipsychotic along a continuum. “Ten to fifteen percent of patients will fail to remit even at first exposure to an antipsychotic medication, but it’s more common that patients will be partial responders,” Dr. Marder said. “One will have to determine whether that response is adequate or not. There’s also the idea that patients sometimes respond vigorously to an antipsychotic early on. For example, first-episode patients tend to respond very well, and they respond at substantially lower doses. But I set a high criteria that we really want patients on an antipsychotic to respond well, to being in a remission that they can live with, not just to be partially remitted.”
In an analysis of response rates, 244 patients with first-episode schizophrenia moved through two antipsychotic trials, followed by a trial with clozapine. For the first two trials, treatment consisted of risperidone followed by olanzapine, or vice versa. About 75% of patients on either drug showed an initial response. “Among those who did not respond in the first trial but were switched to either drug, the response rate was very low, averaging about 16%,” Dr. Marder said. “In other words, if somebody responds poorly to risperidone, they’re not likely to respond to olanzapine, or vice versa. I think this is true among nearly all of the antipsychotic drugs that are available. Patients tend to have sort of an idiosyncratic ability to respond to a nonclozapine antipsychotic. They may respond to one better than the other, but oftentimes they won’t respond well.” When patients in the trial were switched to clozapine, 75% showed an adequate response.
Based on the study findings and on his own clinical practice, Dr. Marder recommends trying one or two antipsychotics before prescribing clozapine. “If they haven’t responded in a couple of weeks, it’s probably good to change them to another antipsychotic,” he said. “If the patient is responding poorly they should go on to clozapine, which I think is very underutilized.”
In late 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved lumateperone, a presynaptic D2 partial agonist and a postsynaptic D2 antagonist, for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. “Its dopamine blockage doesn’t lead to increased dopamine, so it seems to work differently than other antipsychotics,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s effective at lower D2 affinity, which is similar to drugs like clozapine, and it has greater 5 HT2A:D2 antagonism.” It appears to have a relatively benign safety profile, including minimal weight gain, minimal metabolic adverse effects, and minimal extrapyramidal effects. “However, I think the jury’s out,” he added. “There is very little information about head-to-head comparisons between lumateperone and other antipsychotics.”
The new kid on the block is the Alkermes agent AKLS 3831, a combination drug of olanzapine-samidorphan, for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia and adults with bipolar I disorder. In December 2020, the FDA accepted the company’s New Drug Application and set the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of June 1, 2021. Results from a phase 2 trial demonstrated mitigation of olanzapine-induced weight gain with the opioid antagonist samidorphan. “This is not a weight-loss drug,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s just a formulation that causes less weight gain. For patients who do well on olanzapine, putting them on this combination may be helpful in preventing weight gain.”
Dr. Marder disclosed that he has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Allergan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forum, Genentech, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Roche, Sunovion, Takeda, Targacept, and Teva. He has also received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Neurocrine, and Takeda, and is a section editor for UpToDate.
With the exception of clozapine, the selection of an antipsychotic medication for acute treatment is driven by side effects.
That’s a key pearl of wisdom that Stephen R. Marder, MD, shared during a discussion of key criteria for choosing an antipsychotic for patients with schizophrenia.
“It’s a decision that can have huge consequences, both to an individual’s mental health and their physical health,” Dr. Marder said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “If a patient did well and liked a prior antipsychotic, that’s usually evidence that they’ll respond again. That’s been shown numerous times. Aside from that, the largest consideration is usually adverse effects.”
In a multiple-treatments meta-analysis that compared the efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia, researchers found that an overall positive change in symptoms occurred with clozapine, compared with any other drug.
“Clozapine is not just the most effective antipsychotic for patients who are treatment resistant; it’s also the most effective antipsychotic in general populations,” said Dr. Marder, the Daniel X. Freedman Professor of Psychiatry at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The next most effective antipsychotic is amisulpride, which is not available in the U.S., although there’s a company that’s developing a formulation of amisulpride. After that, the 95% confidence intervals overlap, and the differences are probably related not to their true effectiveness but to other circumstances.”
For example, he continued, risperidone and olanzapine were developed in the 1990s. They were always compared with haloperidol and they tended to work a little bit better. “The drugs developed later on in clinical trials tended to be used in patients who were more treatment resistant,” he said. “Aside from clozapine, the differences in effectiveness are relatively small. But the differences in side effects are large.”
The meta-analysis found that haloperidol stood out as the antipsychotic most likely to cause extrapyramidal side effects. Olanzapine and clozapine stood out as causing the most weight gain, while ziprasidone and lurasidone were less likely to cause weight gain. In addition, risperidone, paliperidone, and haloperidol tended to cause the greatest elevation of prolactin levels, while aripiprazole was found to reduce prolactin levels.
“This becomes an important issue, particularly in young people when one is worried about galactorrhea in women or gynecomastia in men, which sometimes happens with risperidone or haloperidol, and to a lesser extent, sexual dysfunction,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs. “Sedation is a major consideration for clozapine and chlorpromazine, but less for other antipsychotics.”
When do you know if you’ve selected the right medication for your patient? According to a meta-analysis of 42 studies involving 7,450 patients, improvement tends to occur within the first 2 weeks of treatment. “Which means Dr. Marder said. “This has been consequential because it provides guidance for clinicians to make decisions.”
Symptoms that are likely to improve in the first couple of days include agitation and psychomotor excitement. Improvement in psychotic symptoms typically occurs in the following order: those with thought disorder symptoms tend to develop more organized thinking, those with hallucinations tend to experience a decrease the intensity and frequency of their episodes, and those with well-ingrained delusions “tend to experience fewer misinterpretations,” Dr. Marder said. “They may feel less suspicious and they may talk less about delusions.”
Dr. Marder makes it a point to evaluate the antipsychotic response of patients in 2-3 weeks. “If it’s a partial response, continue a bit longer,” he advised. “It it’s no response, switch. And, of course, if the drug isn’t tolerated well, switch.”
He advised against thinking that patients can easily be categorized as being strong responders or nonresponders. Instead, he favors viewing responsiveness to an antipsychotic along a continuum. “Ten to fifteen percent of patients will fail to remit even at first exposure to an antipsychotic medication, but it’s more common that patients will be partial responders,” Dr. Marder said. “One will have to determine whether that response is adequate or not. There’s also the idea that patients sometimes respond vigorously to an antipsychotic early on. For example, first-episode patients tend to respond very well, and they respond at substantially lower doses. But I set a high criteria that we really want patients on an antipsychotic to respond well, to being in a remission that they can live with, not just to be partially remitted.”
In an analysis of response rates, 244 patients with first-episode schizophrenia moved through two antipsychotic trials, followed by a trial with clozapine. For the first two trials, treatment consisted of risperidone followed by olanzapine, or vice versa. About 75% of patients on either drug showed an initial response. “Among those who did not respond in the first trial but were switched to either drug, the response rate was very low, averaging about 16%,” Dr. Marder said. “In other words, if somebody responds poorly to risperidone, they’re not likely to respond to olanzapine, or vice versa. I think this is true among nearly all of the antipsychotic drugs that are available. Patients tend to have sort of an idiosyncratic ability to respond to a nonclozapine antipsychotic. They may respond to one better than the other, but oftentimes they won’t respond well.” When patients in the trial were switched to clozapine, 75% showed an adequate response.
Based on the study findings and on his own clinical practice, Dr. Marder recommends trying one or two antipsychotics before prescribing clozapine. “If they haven’t responded in a couple of weeks, it’s probably good to change them to another antipsychotic,” he said. “If the patient is responding poorly they should go on to clozapine, which I think is very underutilized.”
In late 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved lumateperone, a presynaptic D2 partial agonist and a postsynaptic D2 antagonist, for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. “Its dopamine blockage doesn’t lead to increased dopamine, so it seems to work differently than other antipsychotics,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s effective at lower D2 affinity, which is similar to drugs like clozapine, and it has greater 5 HT2A:D2 antagonism.” It appears to have a relatively benign safety profile, including minimal weight gain, minimal metabolic adverse effects, and minimal extrapyramidal effects. “However, I think the jury’s out,” he added. “There is very little information about head-to-head comparisons between lumateperone and other antipsychotics.”
The new kid on the block is the Alkermes agent AKLS 3831, a combination drug of olanzapine-samidorphan, for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia and adults with bipolar I disorder. In December 2020, the FDA accepted the company’s New Drug Application and set the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of June 1, 2021. Results from a phase 2 trial demonstrated mitigation of olanzapine-induced weight gain with the opioid antagonist samidorphan. “This is not a weight-loss drug,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s just a formulation that causes less weight gain. For patients who do well on olanzapine, putting them on this combination may be helpful in preventing weight gain.”
Dr. Marder disclosed that he has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Allergan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forum, Genentech, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Roche, Sunovion, Takeda, Targacept, and Teva. He has also received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Neurocrine, and Takeda, and is a section editor for UpToDate.
FROM NPA 2021
PPE protected critical care staff from COVID-19 transmission
, a new study has found.
“Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection,” said lead author Kate El Bouzidi, MRCP, South London Specialist Virology Centre, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London.
She noted that 60% of critical care staff were symptomatic during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and 20% were antibody positive, with 10% asymptomatic. “Staff acquisition peaked 3 weeks before the peak of COVID-19 ICU admission, and personal protective equipment (PPE) was effective at preventing transmission from patients.” Working in other areas of the hospital was associated with higher seroprevalence, Dr. El Bouzidi noted.
The findings were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
The novel coronavirus was spreading around the world, and when it reached northern Italy, medical authorities began to think in terms of how it might overwhelm the health care system in the United Kingdom, explained Dr. El Bouzidi.
“There was a lot of interest at this time about health care workers who were particularly vulnerable and also about the allocation of resources and rationing of care, particularly in intensive care,” she said. “And this only intensified when our prime minister was admitted to intensive care. About this time, antibody testing also became available.”
The goal of their study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in critical care staff, as well as look at the correlation between antibody status, prior swab testing, and COVID-19 symptoms.
The survey was conducted at Kings College Hospital in London, which is a tertiary-care teaching center. The critical care department is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. The authors estimate that more than 800 people worked in the critical care units, and between March and April 2020, more than 2,000 patients with COVID-19 were admitted, of whom 180 required care in the ICU.
“There was good PPE available in the ICU units right from the start,” she said, “and staff testing was available.”
All staff working in the critical care department participated in the study, which required serum samples and completion of a questionnaire. The samples were tested via six different assays to measure receptor-binding domain, nucleoprotein, and tri-spike, with one antibody result determined for each sample.
Of the 625 staff members, 384 (61.4%) had previously reported experiencing symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. COVID-19 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those health care workers (29.8%).
Overall, 21% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, of whom 9.9% had been asymptomatic.
“We were surprised to find that 61% of staff reported symptoms they felt could be consistent with COVID-19,” she said, noting that fatigue, headache, and cough were the most common symptoms reported. “Seroprevalence was reported in 31% of symptomatic staff and in 5% of those without symptoms.”
Seroprevalence differed by role in a critical care unit, although it did not significantly differ by factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, or underlying conditions. Consultants, who are senior physicians, were twice as likely to test positive, compared with junior doctors. The reason for this finding is not clear, but it may lie in the nature of their work responsibilities, such as performing more aerosol-generating procedures in the ICU or in other departments.
The investigators looked at the timing of infections and found that they preceded peak of patient admissions by 3 weeks, with peak onset of staff symptoms in early March. At this time, Dr. El Bouzidi noted, there were very few patients with COVID-19 in the hospital, and good PPE was available throughout this time period.
“Staff were unlikely to be infected by ICU patients, and therefore PPE was largely effective,” she said. “Other sources of infection were more likely to be the cause, such as interactions with other staff, meetings, or contact in break rooms. Routine mask-wearing throughout the hospital was only encouraged as of June 15.”
There were several limitations to the study, such as the cross-sectional design, reliance on response/recall, the fact that antibody tests are unlikely to detect all previous infections, and no genomic data were available to confirm infections. Even though the study had limitations, Dr. El Bouzidi concluded that ICU staff are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from patients but that other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection.
These findings, she added, demonstrate that PPE was effective at preventing transmission from patients and that protective measures need to be maintained when staff is away from the bedside.
In commenting on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that, even though the study was conducted almost a year ago, the results are still relevant with regard to the effectiveness of PPE.
“There was a huge amount of uncertainty about PPE – what was most effective, could we reuse it, how to sterilize it, what about surfaces, and so on,” he said. “Even for people who work in ICU and who are familiar with the environment and familiar with the patients, there was 1,000 times more uncertainty about everything they were doing.”
Dr. Martin believes that the situation has improved. “It’s not that we take COVID more lightly, but I think the staff is more comfortable dealing with it,” he said. “They now know what they need to do on an hourly and daily basis to stay safe. The PPE had become second nature to them now, with all the other precautions.”
, a new study has found.
“Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection,” said lead author Kate El Bouzidi, MRCP, South London Specialist Virology Centre, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London.
She noted that 60% of critical care staff were symptomatic during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and 20% were antibody positive, with 10% asymptomatic. “Staff acquisition peaked 3 weeks before the peak of COVID-19 ICU admission, and personal protective equipment (PPE) was effective at preventing transmission from patients.” Working in other areas of the hospital was associated with higher seroprevalence, Dr. El Bouzidi noted.
The findings were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
The novel coronavirus was spreading around the world, and when it reached northern Italy, medical authorities began to think in terms of how it might overwhelm the health care system in the United Kingdom, explained Dr. El Bouzidi.
“There was a lot of interest at this time about health care workers who were particularly vulnerable and also about the allocation of resources and rationing of care, particularly in intensive care,” she said. “And this only intensified when our prime minister was admitted to intensive care. About this time, antibody testing also became available.”
The goal of their study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in critical care staff, as well as look at the correlation between antibody status, prior swab testing, and COVID-19 symptoms.
The survey was conducted at Kings College Hospital in London, which is a tertiary-care teaching center. The critical care department is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. The authors estimate that more than 800 people worked in the critical care units, and between March and April 2020, more than 2,000 patients with COVID-19 were admitted, of whom 180 required care in the ICU.
“There was good PPE available in the ICU units right from the start,” she said, “and staff testing was available.”
All staff working in the critical care department participated in the study, which required serum samples and completion of a questionnaire. The samples were tested via six different assays to measure receptor-binding domain, nucleoprotein, and tri-spike, with one antibody result determined for each sample.
Of the 625 staff members, 384 (61.4%) had previously reported experiencing symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. COVID-19 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those health care workers (29.8%).
Overall, 21% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, of whom 9.9% had been asymptomatic.
“We were surprised to find that 61% of staff reported symptoms they felt could be consistent with COVID-19,” she said, noting that fatigue, headache, and cough were the most common symptoms reported. “Seroprevalence was reported in 31% of symptomatic staff and in 5% of those without symptoms.”
Seroprevalence differed by role in a critical care unit, although it did not significantly differ by factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, or underlying conditions. Consultants, who are senior physicians, were twice as likely to test positive, compared with junior doctors. The reason for this finding is not clear, but it may lie in the nature of their work responsibilities, such as performing more aerosol-generating procedures in the ICU or in other departments.
The investigators looked at the timing of infections and found that they preceded peak of patient admissions by 3 weeks, with peak onset of staff symptoms in early March. At this time, Dr. El Bouzidi noted, there were very few patients with COVID-19 in the hospital, and good PPE was available throughout this time period.
“Staff were unlikely to be infected by ICU patients, and therefore PPE was largely effective,” she said. “Other sources of infection were more likely to be the cause, such as interactions with other staff, meetings, or contact in break rooms. Routine mask-wearing throughout the hospital was only encouraged as of June 15.”
There were several limitations to the study, such as the cross-sectional design, reliance on response/recall, the fact that antibody tests are unlikely to detect all previous infections, and no genomic data were available to confirm infections. Even though the study had limitations, Dr. El Bouzidi concluded that ICU staff are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from patients but that other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection.
These findings, she added, demonstrate that PPE was effective at preventing transmission from patients and that protective measures need to be maintained when staff is away from the bedside.
In commenting on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that, even though the study was conducted almost a year ago, the results are still relevant with regard to the effectiveness of PPE.
“There was a huge amount of uncertainty about PPE – what was most effective, could we reuse it, how to sterilize it, what about surfaces, and so on,” he said. “Even for people who work in ICU and who are familiar with the environment and familiar with the patients, there was 1,000 times more uncertainty about everything they were doing.”
Dr. Martin believes that the situation has improved. “It’s not that we take COVID more lightly, but I think the staff is more comfortable dealing with it,” he said. “They now know what they need to do on an hourly and daily basis to stay safe. The PPE had become second nature to them now, with all the other precautions.”
, a new study has found.
“Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection,” said lead author Kate El Bouzidi, MRCP, South London Specialist Virology Centre, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London.
She noted that 60% of critical care staff were symptomatic during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and 20% were antibody positive, with 10% asymptomatic. “Staff acquisition peaked 3 weeks before the peak of COVID-19 ICU admission, and personal protective equipment (PPE) was effective at preventing transmission from patients.” Working in other areas of the hospital was associated with higher seroprevalence, Dr. El Bouzidi noted.
The findings were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
The novel coronavirus was spreading around the world, and when it reached northern Italy, medical authorities began to think in terms of how it might overwhelm the health care system in the United Kingdom, explained Dr. El Bouzidi.
“There was a lot of interest at this time about health care workers who were particularly vulnerable and also about the allocation of resources and rationing of care, particularly in intensive care,” she said. “And this only intensified when our prime minister was admitted to intensive care. About this time, antibody testing also became available.”
The goal of their study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in critical care staff, as well as look at the correlation between antibody status, prior swab testing, and COVID-19 symptoms.
The survey was conducted at Kings College Hospital in London, which is a tertiary-care teaching center. The critical care department is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. The authors estimate that more than 800 people worked in the critical care units, and between March and April 2020, more than 2,000 patients with COVID-19 were admitted, of whom 180 required care in the ICU.
“There was good PPE available in the ICU units right from the start,” she said, “and staff testing was available.”
All staff working in the critical care department participated in the study, which required serum samples and completion of a questionnaire. The samples were tested via six different assays to measure receptor-binding domain, nucleoprotein, and tri-spike, with one antibody result determined for each sample.
Of the 625 staff members, 384 (61.4%) had previously reported experiencing symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. COVID-19 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those health care workers (29.8%).
Overall, 21% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, of whom 9.9% had been asymptomatic.
“We were surprised to find that 61% of staff reported symptoms they felt could be consistent with COVID-19,” she said, noting that fatigue, headache, and cough were the most common symptoms reported. “Seroprevalence was reported in 31% of symptomatic staff and in 5% of those without symptoms.”
Seroprevalence differed by role in a critical care unit, although it did not significantly differ by factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, or underlying conditions. Consultants, who are senior physicians, were twice as likely to test positive, compared with junior doctors. The reason for this finding is not clear, but it may lie in the nature of their work responsibilities, such as performing more aerosol-generating procedures in the ICU or in other departments.
The investigators looked at the timing of infections and found that they preceded peak of patient admissions by 3 weeks, with peak onset of staff symptoms in early March. At this time, Dr. El Bouzidi noted, there were very few patients with COVID-19 in the hospital, and good PPE was available throughout this time period.
“Staff were unlikely to be infected by ICU patients, and therefore PPE was largely effective,” she said. “Other sources of infection were more likely to be the cause, such as interactions with other staff, meetings, or contact in break rooms. Routine mask-wearing throughout the hospital was only encouraged as of June 15.”
There were several limitations to the study, such as the cross-sectional design, reliance on response/recall, the fact that antibody tests are unlikely to detect all previous infections, and no genomic data were available to confirm infections. Even though the study had limitations, Dr. El Bouzidi concluded that ICU staff are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from patients but that other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection.
These findings, she added, demonstrate that PPE was effective at preventing transmission from patients and that protective measures need to be maintained when staff is away from the bedside.
In commenting on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that, even though the study was conducted almost a year ago, the results are still relevant with regard to the effectiveness of PPE.
“There was a huge amount of uncertainty about PPE – what was most effective, could we reuse it, how to sterilize it, what about surfaces, and so on,” he said. “Even for people who work in ICU and who are familiar with the environment and familiar with the patients, there was 1,000 times more uncertainty about everything they were doing.”
Dr. Martin believes that the situation has improved. “It’s not that we take COVID more lightly, but I think the staff is more comfortable dealing with it,” he said. “They now know what they need to do on an hourly and daily basis to stay safe. The PPE had become second nature to them now, with all the other precautions.”
FROM CCC50
‘Unprecedented’ long-term survival after immunotherapy in pretreated NSCLC
Longer-term survival with immunotherapy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is once again being applauded by experts in the field.
This time, the data come from trials that tested immunotherapy in the second-line setting for patients who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. The latest 5-year follow-up from two landmark trials, one with pembrolizumab, the other with nivolumab, show that the survival benefit can persist for years after treatment is stopped.
“These are unprecedented data,” Fred R. Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in either trial and was approached for comment.
Pembrolizumab survival data
The new longer-term data on pembrolizumab come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, which included more than 1,000 patients with advanced NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab or docetaxel for 2 years.
This is the latest update on data from this trial, which has been described as “really extraordinary.”
The 5-year overall survival rates were more than doubled in the pembrolizumab groups, compared with the docetaxel group, reported Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, department of medical oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.. He was presenting the new data at the recent World Conference on Lung Cancer 2020.
Overall results for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) expression greater than 1% show that 15.6% of the pembrolizumab group were still alive at 5 years versus 6.5% of the docetaxel group.
The results were even better among patients who had high PD-L1 TPS expression (>50%): in this subgroup, 25% of the patients who received pembrolizumab were still alive versus 8.2% of those who received docetaxel.
In addition, at 5 years, 9.4% of patients who received pembrolizumab were disease free versus 0.7% of the patients who received docetaxel, Dr. Herbst reported.
Dr. Hirsch commented that the 5-year survival rate of 25% among patients with high PD-L1 expression who underwent treatment with pembrolizumab is “great progress in lung cancer treatment, there is no doubt about it.”
He noted that the results also show that “numerically,” it matters whether patients have low PD-L1 expression. “We know from first-line studies that pembrolizumab monotherapy is effective in high PD-L1–expressing tumors, so these data fit very well,” he said.
At the meeting, Dr. Herbst summarized his presentation on pembrolizumab for patients with NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment, saying that, “with 5 years of follow-up, we continue to see a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and PFS [progression-free survival].
“Pembrolizumab monotherapy is a standard of care in patients with immunotherapy-naive or previously treated PD-L1–positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer,” Herbst stated.
Dr. Hirsch was largely in agreement. He believes that, for patients with a PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%, the standard of care “is practically pembrolizumab monotherapy, unless there are certain circumstances where you would add chemotherapy,” such as for patients with a high tumor volume, “where you want to see a very quick response.”
Dr. Hirsch pointed out, however, that currently most patients with high PD-L1–expressing tumors are given pembrolizumab in the first line, which begs the question as to what to give those who experience disease progression after immunotherapy.
“That is an open space,” he said. “There is a lot of studies going on in what we call the immunotherapy-refractory patients.
“We don’t have clear guidance for clinical practice yet,” he commented. He noted that there are several options: “Do you continue with chemotherapy? Do you continue with chemotherapy plus another immunotherapy? Do you switch to another immunotherapy?”
Commenting on Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said the results were “very exciting.”
However, he wondered whether the results suggest that patients with high PD-L1 expression “may be able to stop” receiving pembrolizumab, whereas those with disease of lower expression “may need longer therapy.”
H. Jack West, MD, medical director of the thoracic oncology program, Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, said on Twitter that, to him, the “most impressive” aspect was the “new insight about patients stopping pembro after 2 years but still having two-thirds with sustained response.”
He added that he would “love to learn which patients can stop therapy and when, or whether we can do infrequent maintenance IO [immunotherapy].”
Nivolumab survival data
The data on nivolumab come from a pooled analysis of 5-year data on 854 patients from CheckMate 057 and CheckMate 017. The analysis was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on Jan. 15, 2021.
Both of these trials compared nivolumab with docetaxel for patients with NSCLC who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy.
The pooled analysis showed that the 5-year overall survival rate was more than fivefold greater with nivolumab than with docetaxel, at 13.4% versus 2.6%.
Moreover, more than 80% of patients who had not experienced progression with the immunotherapy at 2 years were still alive at 5 years. The percentage rose to more than 90% among those who had not experienced progression at 3 years.
Lead author Julie R. Brahmer, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues said the results “demonstrate that nivolumab can provide long-term survival benefit with durable responses and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC.
“Furthermore, some patients appear to maintain prolonged disease control even after stopping systemic therapy,” they noted.
Dr. Hirsch commented that, although the survival rates with nivolumab were slightly lower than reported with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-010, they could still be “within the range.” He added that “I wouldn’t conclude that pembrolizumab is better than nivolumab.”
Many factors may account for these differences, he suggested, including differences in the patient populations or simply differences in the numbers of patients included.
For him, the “main point” of the new data from both trials is that immunotherapy has shown “tremendous progress, compared to chemotherapy.”
KEYNOTE-010 was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme. CheckMate 017 and CheckMate057 were sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herbst has relationships with Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, AbbVie, Biodesix, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Heat Biologics, Loxo, Nektar, NextCure, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Tesaro, Neon Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Armo Biosciences, Genmab, Halozyme, and Tocagen. Dr. Brahmer has relationships with Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Celgene, Syndax, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Amgen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Revolution, and Roche/Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Longer-term survival with immunotherapy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is once again being applauded by experts in the field.
This time, the data come from trials that tested immunotherapy in the second-line setting for patients who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. The latest 5-year follow-up from two landmark trials, one with pembrolizumab, the other with nivolumab, show that the survival benefit can persist for years after treatment is stopped.
“These are unprecedented data,” Fred R. Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in either trial and was approached for comment.
Pembrolizumab survival data
The new longer-term data on pembrolizumab come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, which included more than 1,000 patients with advanced NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab or docetaxel for 2 years.
This is the latest update on data from this trial, which has been described as “really extraordinary.”
The 5-year overall survival rates were more than doubled in the pembrolizumab groups, compared with the docetaxel group, reported Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, department of medical oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.. He was presenting the new data at the recent World Conference on Lung Cancer 2020.
Overall results for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) expression greater than 1% show that 15.6% of the pembrolizumab group were still alive at 5 years versus 6.5% of the docetaxel group.
The results were even better among patients who had high PD-L1 TPS expression (>50%): in this subgroup, 25% of the patients who received pembrolizumab were still alive versus 8.2% of those who received docetaxel.
In addition, at 5 years, 9.4% of patients who received pembrolizumab were disease free versus 0.7% of the patients who received docetaxel, Dr. Herbst reported.
Dr. Hirsch commented that the 5-year survival rate of 25% among patients with high PD-L1 expression who underwent treatment with pembrolizumab is “great progress in lung cancer treatment, there is no doubt about it.”
He noted that the results also show that “numerically,” it matters whether patients have low PD-L1 expression. “We know from first-line studies that pembrolizumab monotherapy is effective in high PD-L1–expressing tumors, so these data fit very well,” he said.
At the meeting, Dr. Herbst summarized his presentation on pembrolizumab for patients with NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment, saying that, “with 5 years of follow-up, we continue to see a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and PFS [progression-free survival].
“Pembrolizumab monotherapy is a standard of care in patients with immunotherapy-naive or previously treated PD-L1–positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer,” Herbst stated.
Dr. Hirsch was largely in agreement. He believes that, for patients with a PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%, the standard of care “is practically pembrolizumab monotherapy, unless there are certain circumstances where you would add chemotherapy,” such as for patients with a high tumor volume, “where you want to see a very quick response.”
Dr. Hirsch pointed out, however, that currently most patients with high PD-L1–expressing tumors are given pembrolizumab in the first line, which begs the question as to what to give those who experience disease progression after immunotherapy.
“That is an open space,” he said. “There is a lot of studies going on in what we call the immunotherapy-refractory patients.
“We don’t have clear guidance for clinical practice yet,” he commented. He noted that there are several options: “Do you continue with chemotherapy? Do you continue with chemotherapy plus another immunotherapy? Do you switch to another immunotherapy?”
Commenting on Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said the results were “very exciting.”
However, he wondered whether the results suggest that patients with high PD-L1 expression “may be able to stop” receiving pembrolizumab, whereas those with disease of lower expression “may need longer therapy.”
H. Jack West, MD, medical director of the thoracic oncology program, Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, said on Twitter that, to him, the “most impressive” aspect was the “new insight about patients stopping pembro after 2 years but still having two-thirds with sustained response.”
He added that he would “love to learn which patients can stop therapy and when, or whether we can do infrequent maintenance IO [immunotherapy].”
Nivolumab survival data
The data on nivolumab come from a pooled analysis of 5-year data on 854 patients from CheckMate 057 and CheckMate 017. The analysis was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on Jan. 15, 2021.
Both of these trials compared nivolumab with docetaxel for patients with NSCLC who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy.
The pooled analysis showed that the 5-year overall survival rate was more than fivefold greater with nivolumab than with docetaxel, at 13.4% versus 2.6%.
Moreover, more than 80% of patients who had not experienced progression with the immunotherapy at 2 years were still alive at 5 years. The percentage rose to more than 90% among those who had not experienced progression at 3 years.
Lead author Julie R. Brahmer, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues said the results “demonstrate that nivolumab can provide long-term survival benefit with durable responses and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC.
“Furthermore, some patients appear to maintain prolonged disease control even after stopping systemic therapy,” they noted.
Dr. Hirsch commented that, although the survival rates with nivolumab were slightly lower than reported with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-010, they could still be “within the range.” He added that “I wouldn’t conclude that pembrolizumab is better than nivolumab.”
Many factors may account for these differences, he suggested, including differences in the patient populations or simply differences in the numbers of patients included.
For him, the “main point” of the new data from both trials is that immunotherapy has shown “tremendous progress, compared to chemotherapy.”
KEYNOTE-010 was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme. CheckMate 017 and CheckMate057 were sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herbst has relationships with Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, AbbVie, Biodesix, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Heat Biologics, Loxo, Nektar, NextCure, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Tesaro, Neon Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Armo Biosciences, Genmab, Halozyme, and Tocagen. Dr. Brahmer has relationships with Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Celgene, Syndax, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Amgen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Revolution, and Roche/Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Longer-term survival with immunotherapy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is once again being applauded by experts in the field.
This time, the data come from trials that tested immunotherapy in the second-line setting for patients who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. The latest 5-year follow-up from two landmark trials, one with pembrolizumab, the other with nivolumab, show that the survival benefit can persist for years after treatment is stopped.
“These are unprecedented data,” Fred R. Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology at the Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in either trial and was approached for comment.
Pembrolizumab survival data
The new longer-term data on pembrolizumab come from the KEYNOTE-010 trial, which included more than 1,000 patients with advanced NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab or docetaxel for 2 years.
This is the latest update on data from this trial, which has been described as “really extraordinary.”
The 5-year overall survival rates were more than doubled in the pembrolizumab groups, compared with the docetaxel group, reported Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, department of medical oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.. He was presenting the new data at the recent World Conference on Lung Cancer 2020.
Overall results for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) expression greater than 1% show that 15.6% of the pembrolizumab group were still alive at 5 years versus 6.5% of the docetaxel group.
The results were even better among patients who had high PD-L1 TPS expression (>50%): in this subgroup, 25% of the patients who received pembrolizumab were still alive versus 8.2% of those who received docetaxel.
In addition, at 5 years, 9.4% of patients who received pembrolizumab were disease free versus 0.7% of the patients who received docetaxel, Dr. Herbst reported.
Dr. Hirsch commented that the 5-year survival rate of 25% among patients with high PD-L1 expression who underwent treatment with pembrolizumab is “great progress in lung cancer treatment, there is no doubt about it.”
He noted that the results also show that “numerically,” it matters whether patients have low PD-L1 expression. “We know from first-line studies that pembrolizumab monotherapy is effective in high PD-L1–expressing tumors, so these data fit very well,” he said.
At the meeting, Dr. Herbst summarized his presentation on pembrolizumab for patients with NSCLC who had previously undergone treatment, saying that, “with 5 years of follow-up, we continue to see a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and PFS [progression-free survival].
“Pembrolizumab monotherapy is a standard of care in patients with immunotherapy-naive or previously treated PD-L1–positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer,” Herbst stated.
Dr. Hirsch was largely in agreement. He believes that, for patients with a PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%, the standard of care “is practically pembrolizumab monotherapy, unless there are certain circumstances where you would add chemotherapy,” such as for patients with a high tumor volume, “where you want to see a very quick response.”
Dr. Hirsch pointed out, however, that currently most patients with high PD-L1–expressing tumors are given pembrolizumab in the first line, which begs the question as to what to give those who experience disease progression after immunotherapy.
“That is an open space,” he said. “There is a lot of studies going on in what we call the immunotherapy-refractory patients.
“We don’t have clear guidance for clinical practice yet,” he commented. He noted that there are several options: “Do you continue with chemotherapy? Do you continue with chemotherapy plus another immunotherapy? Do you switch to another immunotherapy?”
Commenting on Twitter, Stephen V. Liu, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Georgetown University, Washington, said the results were “very exciting.”
However, he wondered whether the results suggest that patients with high PD-L1 expression “may be able to stop” receiving pembrolizumab, whereas those with disease of lower expression “may need longer therapy.”
H. Jack West, MD, medical director of the thoracic oncology program, Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, said on Twitter that, to him, the “most impressive” aspect was the “new insight about patients stopping pembro after 2 years but still having two-thirds with sustained response.”
He added that he would “love to learn which patients can stop therapy and when, or whether we can do infrequent maintenance IO [immunotherapy].”
Nivolumab survival data
The data on nivolumab come from a pooled analysis of 5-year data on 854 patients from CheckMate 057 and CheckMate 017. The analysis was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on Jan. 15, 2021.
Both of these trials compared nivolumab with docetaxel for patients with NSCLC who had experienced disease progression with platinum-based chemotherapy.
The pooled analysis showed that the 5-year overall survival rate was more than fivefold greater with nivolumab than with docetaxel, at 13.4% versus 2.6%.
Moreover, more than 80% of patients who had not experienced progression with the immunotherapy at 2 years were still alive at 5 years. The percentage rose to more than 90% among those who had not experienced progression at 3 years.
Lead author Julie R. Brahmer, MD, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues said the results “demonstrate that nivolumab can provide long-term survival benefit with durable responses and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC.
“Furthermore, some patients appear to maintain prolonged disease control even after stopping systemic therapy,” they noted.
Dr. Hirsch commented that, although the survival rates with nivolumab were slightly lower than reported with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-010, they could still be “within the range.” He added that “I wouldn’t conclude that pembrolizumab is better than nivolumab.”
Many factors may account for these differences, he suggested, including differences in the patient populations or simply differences in the numbers of patients included.
For him, the “main point” of the new data from both trials is that immunotherapy has shown “tremendous progress, compared to chemotherapy.”
KEYNOTE-010 was sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme. CheckMate 017 and CheckMate057 were sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Herbst has relationships with Jun Shi Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Merck, Pfizer, AbbVie, Biodesix, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Heat Biologics, Loxo, Nektar, NextCure, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Tesaro, Neon Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Armo Biosciences, Genmab, Halozyme, and Tocagen. Dr. Brahmer has relationships with Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Celgene, Syndax, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Amgen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Revolution, and Roche/Genentech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vedolizumab looks safer than anti-TNF drugs in older adults with IBD
A large analysis of Medicare data from all 50 states suggests that vedolizumab may be just as effective as anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents in controlling inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in patients aged over 65 years, with fewer infectious disease hospitalizations.
The study was prompted by the fact that older adults are greatly underrepresented in clinical trials of approved IBD medications. There is a second peak in IBD diagnosis among people in their 50s and 60s, and IBD patients are living longer with more effective medications. So although a significant number of IBD patients are aged 65 years or older, that group encompasses less than 1% of adults in clinical trials, Bharati Kochar, MD, reported at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
“Therefore, we don’t know how well these medications work and how safe they are specifically in older adults,” said Dr. Kochar, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The data largely support what had been known mechanistically about vedolizumab. “It suggests that both drugs work well enough to prevent [IBD-related] hospitalizations, but clearly there was a benefit toward the safer medication, Entyvio [vedolizumab], in the infection-related hospitalizations. That’s not the only readout in infections, but it is an important readout because infections that get hospitalized are the ones that predict mortality and disability,” said Matthew Ciorba, MD, who attended the session. Dr. Ciorba is director of the IBD Center at Washington University in St. Louis and was not involved in the study.
“I think this study is reassuring to clinicians. It provides important clinical data that support what we know about the mechanisms of vedolizumab. The safety data we predicted is borne out in this large and well-done study,” said Dr. Ciorba.
The researchers collected a 20% random sample from a 50-state Medicare claims database, including patients who were aged 65 years or older, who had two or more codes for Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, and had 18 months of continuous enrollment. It excluded Medicare Part C patients; those who used ustekinumab, natalizumab, cyclosporine, or tacrolimus during the look back and study period; and those with two or more codes for rheumatoid arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis during the study period.
Among those included, 480 patients were on vedolizumab, while 1,152 were on anti-TNF medications. The two groups were broadly similar in their characteristics: Twenty-nine percent of both groups took budesonide, although the anti-TNF group had a higher frequency use of systemic corticosteroids (68% vs. 57%), 5-ASA drugs (62% vs. 42%), and immunomodulators (32% vs. 28%).
There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to frequency of IBD-related hospitalizations, IBD-related surgery, steroid prescription rate after induction, or all-cause hospitalization. However, infection-related hospitalizations were less frequent in the vedolizumab group (crude incidence, 0.03 vs. 0.05 per person-year; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.86).
“I think it’s important to use your clinical judgment to treat the patient in front of you, and these data should simply help contextualize risk for older IBD patients newly initiating vedolizumab and anti-TNF agents,” said Dr. Kochar. However, recognizing the limitations of any retrospective study based on administrative data, she called for additional research. “There is a vast need for additional large and robust comparative effectiveness and safety studies in older adults of the rapidly proliferating arsenal of IBD medications,” Dr. Kochar concluded.
Dr. Kochar and Dr. Ciorba have no relevant financial disclosures.
A large analysis of Medicare data from all 50 states suggests that vedolizumab may be just as effective as anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents in controlling inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in patients aged over 65 years, with fewer infectious disease hospitalizations.
The study was prompted by the fact that older adults are greatly underrepresented in clinical trials of approved IBD medications. There is a second peak in IBD diagnosis among people in their 50s and 60s, and IBD patients are living longer with more effective medications. So although a significant number of IBD patients are aged 65 years or older, that group encompasses less than 1% of adults in clinical trials, Bharati Kochar, MD, reported at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
“Therefore, we don’t know how well these medications work and how safe they are specifically in older adults,” said Dr. Kochar, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The data largely support what had been known mechanistically about vedolizumab. “It suggests that both drugs work well enough to prevent [IBD-related] hospitalizations, but clearly there was a benefit toward the safer medication, Entyvio [vedolizumab], in the infection-related hospitalizations. That’s not the only readout in infections, but it is an important readout because infections that get hospitalized are the ones that predict mortality and disability,” said Matthew Ciorba, MD, who attended the session. Dr. Ciorba is director of the IBD Center at Washington University in St. Louis and was not involved in the study.
“I think this study is reassuring to clinicians. It provides important clinical data that support what we know about the mechanisms of vedolizumab. The safety data we predicted is borne out in this large and well-done study,” said Dr. Ciorba.
The researchers collected a 20% random sample from a 50-state Medicare claims database, including patients who were aged 65 years or older, who had two or more codes for Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, and had 18 months of continuous enrollment. It excluded Medicare Part C patients; those who used ustekinumab, natalizumab, cyclosporine, or tacrolimus during the look back and study period; and those with two or more codes for rheumatoid arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis during the study period.
Among those included, 480 patients were on vedolizumab, while 1,152 were on anti-TNF medications. The two groups were broadly similar in their characteristics: Twenty-nine percent of both groups took budesonide, although the anti-TNF group had a higher frequency use of systemic corticosteroids (68% vs. 57%), 5-ASA drugs (62% vs. 42%), and immunomodulators (32% vs. 28%).
There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to frequency of IBD-related hospitalizations, IBD-related surgery, steroid prescription rate after induction, or all-cause hospitalization. However, infection-related hospitalizations were less frequent in the vedolizumab group (crude incidence, 0.03 vs. 0.05 per person-year; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.86).
“I think it’s important to use your clinical judgment to treat the patient in front of you, and these data should simply help contextualize risk for older IBD patients newly initiating vedolizumab and anti-TNF agents,” said Dr. Kochar. However, recognizing the limitations of any retrospective study based on administrative data, she called for additional research. “There is a vast need for additional large and robust comparative effectiveness and safety studies in older adults of the rapidly proliferating arsenal of IBD medications,” Dr. Kochar concluded.
Dr. Kochar and Dr. Ciorba have no relevant financial disclosures.
A large analysis of Medicare data from all 50 states suggests that vedolizumab may be just as effective as anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents in controlling inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in patients aged over 65 years, with fewer infectious disease hospitalizations.
The study was prompted by the fact that older adults are greatly underrepresented in clinical trials of approved IBD medications. There is a second peak in IBD diagnosis among people in their 50s and 60s, and IBD patients are living longer with more effective medications. So although a significant number of IBD patients are aged 65 years or older, that group encompasses less than 1% of adults in clinical trials, Bharati Kochar, MD, reported at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
“Therefore, we don’t know how well these medications work and how safe they are specifically in older adults,” said Dr. Kochar, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The data largely support what had been known mechanistically about vedolizumab. “It suggests that both drugs work well enough to prevent [IBD-related] hospitalizations, but clearly there was a benefit toward the safer medication, Entyvio [vedolizumab], in the infection-related hospitalizations. That’s not the only readout in infections, but it is an important readout because infections that get hospitalized are the ones that predict mortality and disability,” said Matthew Ciorba, MD, who attended the session. Dr. Ciorba is director of the IBD Center at Washington University in St. Louis and was not involved in the study.
“I think this study is reassuring to clinicians. It provides important clinical data that support what we know about the mechanisms of vedolizumab. The safety data we predicted is borne out in this large and well-done study,” said Dr. Ciorba.
The researchers collected a 20% random sample from a 50-state Medicare claims database, including patients who were aged 65 years or older, who had two or more codes for Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, and had 18 months of continuous enrollment. It excluded Medicare Part C patients; those who used ustekinumab, natalizumab, cyclosporine, or tacrolimus during the look back and study period; and those with two or more codes for rheumatoid arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis during the study period.
Among those included, 480 patients were on vedolizumab, while 1,152 were on anti-TNF medications. The two groups were broadly similar in their characteristics: Twenty-nine percent of both groups took budesonide, although the anti-TNF group had a higher frequency use of systemic corticosteroids (68% vs. 57%), 5-ASA drugs (62% vs. 42%), and immunomodulators (32% vs. 28%).
There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to frequency of IBD-related hospitalizations, IBD-related surgery, steroid prescription rate after induction, or all-cause hospitalization. However, infection-related hospitalizations were less frequent in the vedolizumab group (crude incidence, 0.03 vs. 0.05 per person-year; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.86).
“I think it’s important to use your clinical judgment to treat the patient in front of you, and these data should simply help contextualize risk for older IBD patients newly initiating vedolizumab and anti-TNF agents,” said Dr. Kochar. However, recognizing the limitations of any retrospective study based on administrative data, she called for additional research. “There is a vast need for additional large and robust comparative effectiveness and safety studies in older adults of the rapidly proliferating arsenal of IBD medications,” Dr. Kochar concluded.
Dr. Kochar and Dr. Ciorba have no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM THE CROHN’S & COLITIS CONGRESS
Women and ACS: Focus on typical symptoms to improve outcomes
There are some differences in how women relative to men report symptoms of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but they should not be permitted to get in the way of prompt diagnosis and treatment, according to an expert review at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.
“We need to get away from the idea that symptoms of a myocardial infarction in women are atypical, because women are also having typical symptoms,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.
Sexes share key symptoms, but not treatment
Although “women are more likely to report additional symptoms,” chest pain “is pretty much equal between men and women” presenting with an ACS, according to Dr. Gulati.
There are several studies that have shown this, including the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI patients (VIRGO). In VIRGO, which looked at ACS symptom presentation in younger patients (ages 18-55 years), 87.0% of women versus 89.5% of men presented with chest pain defined as pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort.
Even among those who recognize that more women die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) disease than any other cause, nothing seems to erase the bias that women in an ED are less likely than men to be having a heart attack. About 60 million women in the United States have CVD, so no threat imposes a higher toll in morbidity and mortality.
In comparison, there are only about 3.5 million women with breast cancer. Even though this is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in women, it is dwarfed by CVD, according to statistics cited by Dr. Gulati. Yet, the data show women get inferior care by guideline-based standards.
“After a myocardial infarction, women relative to men are less likely to get aspirin or beta-blockers within 24 hours, they are less likely to undergo any type of invasive procedure, and they are less likely to meet the door-to-balloon time or receive any reperfusion therapy,” Dr. Gulati said. After a CVD event, “the only thing women do better is to die.”
Additional symptoms may muddy the diagnostic waters
In the setting of ACS, the problem is not that women fail to report symptoms that should lead clinicians to consider CVD, but that they report additional symptoms. For the clinician less inclined to consider CVD in women, particularly younger women, there is a greater risk of going down the wrong diagnostic pathway.
In other words, women report symptoms consistent with CVD, “but it is a question of whether we are hearing it,” Dr. Gulati said.
In the VIRGO study, 61.9% of women versus 54.8% of men (P < .001) presented three or more symptoms in addition to chest pain, such as epigastric symptoms, discomfort in the arms or neck, or palpitations. Women were more likely than men to attribute the symptoms to stress or anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.8%; P < .001), while less likely to consider them a result of muscle pain (15.4% vs. 21.2%; P = .029).
There are other gender differences for ACS. For example, women are more likely than men to presented ischemia without obstruction, but Dr. Gulati emphasized that lack of obstruction is not a reason to dismiss the potential for an underlying CV cause.
‘Yentl syndrome’ persists
“Women should not need to present exactly like men to be taken seriously,” she said, describing the “Yentl syndrome,” which now has its own Wikipedia page. A cardiovascular version of this syndrome was first described 30 years ago. Based on a movie of a woman who cross dresses in order to be allowed to undertake Jewish studies, the term captures the societal failure to adapt care for women who do not present disease the same way that men do.
Overall, inadequate urgency to pursue potential symptoms of ACS in women is just another manifestation of the “bikini approach to women’s health,” according to Dr. Gulati. This describes the focus on the breast and reproductive system to the exclusion or other organs and anatomy. Dr. Gulati speculated that this might be the reason that clinicians have failed to apply ACS guidelines to women with the same rigor that they apply to men.
This is hardly a new issue. Calls for improving cardiovascular care in women have been increasing in volume for more than past 20 years, but the issue has proven persistent, according to Dr. Gulati. As an example, she noted that the same types of gaps in care and in outcome reported in a 2008 registry study had not much changed in an article published 8 years later.
The solution is not complex, according to Dr. Gulati. In the ED, guideline-directed diagnostic tests should be offered to any man or woman, including younger women, who present with chest pain, ignoring gender bias that threatens misinterpretation of patient history and symptoms. Once CVD is diagnosed as promptly in women as it is in men, guideline-directed intervention would be expected to reduce the gender gap in outcomes.
“By applying standardized protocols, it will help us to the same for women as we do for men,” Dr. Gulati said.
The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
There are some differences in how women relative to men report symptoms of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but they should not be permitted to get in the way of prompt diagnosis and treatment, according to an expert review at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.
“We need to get away from the idea that symptoms of a myocardial infarction in women are atypical, because women are also having typical symptoms,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.
Sexes share key symptoms, but not treatment
Although “women are more likely to report additional symptoms,” chest pain “is pretty much equal between men and women” presenting with an ACS, according to Dr. Gulati.
There are several studies that have shown this, including the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI patients (VIRGO). In VIRGO, which looked at ACS symptom presentation in younger patients (ages 18-55 years), 87.0% of women versus 89.5% of men presented with chest pain defined as pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort.
Even among those who recognize that more women die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) disease than any other cause, nothing seems to erase the bias that women in an ED are less likely than men to be having a heart attack. About 60 million women in the United States have CVD, so no threat imposes a higher toll in morbidity and mortality.
In comparison, there are only about 3.5 million women with breast cancer. Even though this is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in women, it is dwarfed by CVD, according to statistics cited by Dr. Gulati. Yet, the data show women get inferior care by guideline-based standards.
“After a myocardial infarction, women relative to men are less likely to get aspirin or beta-blockers within 24 hours, they are less likely to undergo any type of invasive procedure, and they are less likely to meet the door-to-balloon time or receive any reperfusion therapy,” Dr. Gulati said. After a CVD event, “the only thing women do better is to die.”
Additional symptoms may muddy the diagnostic waters
In the setting of ACS, the problem is not that women fail to report symptoms that should lead clinicians to consider CVD, but that they report additional symptoms. For the clinician less inclined to consider CVD in women, particularly younger women, there is a greater risk of going down the wrong diagnostic pathway.
In other words, women report symptoms consistent with CVD, “but it is a question of whether we are hearing it,” Dr. Gulati said.
In the VIRGO study, 61.9% of women versus 54.8% of men (P < .001) presented three or more symptoms in addition to chest pain, such as epigastric symptoms, discomfort in the arms or neck, or palpitations. Women were more likely than men to attribute the symptoms to stress or anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.8%; P < .001), while less likely to consider them a result of muscle pain (15.4% vs. 21.2%; P = .029).
There are other gender differences for ACS. For example, women are more likely than men to presented ischemia without obstruction, but Dr. Gulati emphasized that lack of obstruction is not a reason to dismiss the potential for an underlying CV cause.
‘Yentl syndrome’ persists
“Women should not need to present exactly like men to be taken seriously,” she said, describing the “Yentl syndrome,” which now has its own Wikipedia page. A cardiovascular version of this syndrome was first described 30 years ago. Based on a movie of a woman who cross dresses in order to be allowed to undertake Jewish studies, the term captures the societal failure to adapt care for women who do not present disease the same way that men do.
Overall, inadequate urgency to pursue potential symptoms of ACS in women is just another manifestation of the “bikini approach to women’s health,” according to Dr. Gulati. This describes the focus on the breast and reproductive system to the exclusion or other organs and anatomy. Dr. Gulati speculated that this might be the reason that clinicians have failed to apply ACS guidelines to women with the same rigor that they apply to men.
This is hardly a new issue. Calls for improving cardiovascular care in women have been increasing in volume for more than past 20 years, but the issue has proven persistent, according to Dr. Gulati. As an example, she noted that the same types of gaps in care and in outcome reported in a 2008 registry study had not much changed in an article published 8 years later.
The solution is not complex, according to Dr. Gulati. In the ED, guideline-directed diagnostic tests should be offered to any man or woman, including younger women, who present with chest pain, ignoring gender bias that threatens misinterpretation of patient history and symptoms. Once CVD is diagnosed as promptly in women as it is in men, guideline-directed intervention would be expected to reduce the gender gap in outcomes.
“By applying standardized protocols, it will help us to the same for women as we do for men,” Dr. Gulati said.
The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
There are some differences in how women relative to men report symptoms of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but they should not be permitted to get in the way of prompt diagnosis and treatment, according to an expert review at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.
“We need to get away from the idea that symptoms of a myocardial infarction in women are atypical, because women are also having typical symptoms,” said Martha Gulati, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.
Sexes share key symptoms, but not treatment
Although “women are more likely to report additional symptoms,” chest pain “is pretty much equal between men and women” presenting with an ACS, according to Dr. Gulati.
There are several studies that have shown this, including the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI patients (VIRGO). In VIRGO, which looked at ACS symptom presentation in younger patients (ages 18-55 years), 87.0% of women versus 89.5% of men presented with chest pain defined as pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort.
Even among those who recognize that more women die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) disease than any other cause, nothing seems to erase the bias that women in an ED are less likely than men to be having a heart attack. About 60 million women in the United States have CVD, so no threat imposes a higher toll in morbidity and mortality.
In comparison, there are only about 3.5 million women with breast cancer. Even though this is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in women, it is dwarfed by CVD, according to statistics cited by Dr. Gulati. Yet, the data show women get inferior care by guideline-based standards.
“After a myocardial infarction, women relative to men are less likely to get aspirin or beta-blockers within 24 hours, they are less likely to undergo any type of invasive procedure, and they are less likely to meet the door-to-balloon time or receive any reperfusion therapy,” Dr. Gulati said. After a CVD event, “the only thing women do better is to die.”
Additional symptoms may muddy the diagnostic waters
In the setting of ACS, the problem is not that women fail to report symptoms that should lead clinicians to consider CVD, but that they report additional symptoms. For the clinician less inclined to consider CVD in women, particularly younger women, there is a greater risk of going down the wrong diagnostic pathway.
In other words, women report symptoms consistent with CVD, “but it is a question of whether we are hearing it,” Dr. Gulati said.
In the VIRGO study, 61.9% of women versus 54.8% of men (P < .001) presented three or more symptoms in addition to chest pain, such as epigastric symptoms, discomfort in the arms or neck, or palpitations. Women were more likely than men to attribute the symptoms to stress or anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.8%; P < .001), while less likely to consider them a result of muscle pain (15.4% vs. 21.2%; P = .029).
There are other gender differences for ACS. For example, women are more likely than men to presented ischemia without obstruction, but Dr. Gulati emphasized that lack of obstruction is not a reason to dismiss the potential for an underlying CV cause.
‘Yentl syndrome’ persists
“Women should not need to present exactly like men to be taken seriously,” she said, describing the “Yentl syndrome,” which now has its own Wikipedia page. A cardiovascular version of this syndrome was first described 30 years ago. Based on a movie of a woman who cross dresses in order to be allowed to undertake Jewish studies, the term captures the societal failure to adapt care for women who do not present disease the same way that men do.
Overall, inadequate urgency to pursue potential symptoms of ACS in women is just another manifestation of the “bikini approach to women’s health,” according to Dr. Gulati. This describes the focus on the breast and reproductive system to the exclusion or other organs and anatomy. Dr. Gulati speculated that this might be the reason that clinicians have failed to apply ACS guidelines to women with the same rigor that they apply to men.
This is hardly a new issue. Calls for improving cardiovascular care in women have been increasing in volume for more than past 20 years, but the issue has proven persistent, according to Dr. Gulati. As an example, she noted that the same types of gaps in care and in outcome reported in a 2008 registry study had not much changed in an article published 8 years later.
The solution is not complex, according to Dr. Gulati. In the ED, guideline-directed diagnostic tests should be offered to any man or woman, including younger women, who present with chest pain, ignoring gender bias that threatens misinterpretation of patient history and symptoms. Once CVD is diagnosed as promptly in women as it is in men, guideline-directed intervention would be expected to reduce the gender gap in outcomes.
“By applying standardized protocols, it will help us to the same for women as we do for men,” Dr. Gulati said.
The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM GOING BACK TO THE HEART OF CARDIOLOGY