Conference Coverage

New research suggests that proposed lung cancer screening guidelines could inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities, but adding in a risk prediction model could reduce some of these disparities by identifying people with high predicted benefit, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The draft United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2020 guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening for individuals aged 50-80 who currently smoke or quit in the last 15 years, and who have a smoking history equivalent to at least one pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years or more.

This expands the age range and smoking history requirement compared to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations in an attempt to partially ameliorate racial disparities in screening eligibility. The 2013 guidelines recommend screening ever-smokers aged 55-80 with 30 or more pack-years and 15 or fewer quit-years.

However, neither the 2013 nor the 2020 USPSTF recommendations consider the higher risk of lung cancer and younger ages at diagnosis among African Americans, despite their smoking less than Whites, according to Rebecca Landy, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“For the same age and smoking history as Whites, minorities have substantially different lung cancer risk,” Dr. Landy said. “Incorporating individualized prediction models into USPSTF guidelines may reduce racial/ethnic disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility.”

Dr. Landy and colleagues set out to test that theory, and she presented the results at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3564), which was rescheduled for January 2021. The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Study details

Dr. Landy and colleagues modeled the performance of National Lung Screening Trial–like screening (three annual CT screens, 5 years of follow-up) among three cohorts of ever-smokers aged 50-80 using the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

One group was eligible by USPSTF 2013 guidelines, another by draft USPSTF 2020 guidelines, and yet another by augmenting the USPSTF 2020 guidelines using risk prediction to include individuals with 12 or more days of life gained according to the Life-Years From Screening–CT (LYFS-CT) model.

“Among each race/ethnicity, we calculated the number eligible for screening, proportion of preventable lung cancer deaths prevented, proportion of gainable life-years gained, and screening effectiveness, as well as the relative disparities in lung cancer deaths prevented and life-years gained,” Dr. Landy said.
 

Results

Under the 2013 guidelines, 8 million ever-smokers were eligible. The disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity, compared to Whites, were 15% for African Americans, 15% for Asian Americans, and 24% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 15%, 13%, and 24%, respectively.

Under the 2020 draft guidelines, 14.5 million ever-smokers were eligible, but racial/ethnic disparities persisted. Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 13% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 27% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 16%, 19%, and 27%, respectively.

Using the LYFS-CT predictive-risk model added an additional 3.5 million people and “nearly eliminated” disparities for African Americans, Dr. Landy noted. However, disparities persisted for Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans.

Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 0% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 23% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 1%, 19%, and 24%, respectively.
 

More and widening disparity

The results showed that augmenting USPSTF criteria to include high-benefit people selected significantly more African Americans than Whites and could therefore reduce or even eliminate disparities between Whites and African Americans.

“The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations would make 6.5 million more people eligible to be screened, in addition to the 8 million from the 2013 criteria,” said Gerard Silvestri, MD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who was not involved in this study.

“But there will be more White people than African American people added, and the disparity between them may widen. Using the risk prediction model outlined in this well-researched study could close the gap in disparity. It’s important to identify individual risk and life expectancy.”

Dr. Silvestri pointed out that, compared to Whites, African Americans develop lung cancer at an earlier age with fewer pack-years history of smoking and have worse outcomes.

“We can’t just focus on one aspect of disparity,” he said. “African Americans are much less likely to be insured or to identify a primary care provider for integrated care. We know that screening works. The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations will enlarge the pool of eligible African Americans and reduce disparities if the other part of the equation holds; that is, they get access to care and screening.”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Dr. Landy and Dr. Silvestri have no disclosures.

New research suggests that proposed lung cancer screening guidelines could inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities, but adding in a risk prediction model could reduce some of these disparities by identifying people with high predicted benefit, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The draft United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2020 guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening for individuals aged 50-80 who currently smoke or quit in the last 15 years, and who have a smoking history equivalent to at least one pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years or more.

This expands the age range and smoking history requirement compared to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations in an attempt to partially ameliorate racial disparities in screening eligibility. The 2013 guidelines recommend screening ever-smokers aged 55-80 with 30 or more pack-years and 15 or fewer quit-years.

However, neither the 2013 nor the 2020 USPSTF recommendations consider the higher risk of lung cancer and younger ages at diagnosis among African Americans, despite their smoking less than Whites, according to Rebecca Landy, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“For the same age and smoking history as Whites, minorities have substantially different lung cancer risk,” Dr. Landy said. “Incorporating individualized prediction models into USPSTF guidelines may reduce racial/ethnic disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility.”

Dr. Landy and colleagues set out to test that theory, and she presented the results at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3564), which was rescheduled for January 2021. The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Study details

Dr. Landy and colleagues modeled the performance of National Lung Screening Trial–like screening (three annual CT screens, 5 years of follow-up) among three cohorts of ever-smokers aged 50-80 using the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

One group was eligible by USPSTF 2013 guidelines, another by draft USPSTF 2020 guidelines, and yet another by augmenting the USPSTF 2020 guidelines using risk prediction to include individuals with 12 or more days of life gained according to the Life-Years From Screening–CT (LYFS-CT) model.

“Among each race/ethnicity, we calculated the number eligible for screening, proportion of preventable lung cancer deaths prevented, proportion of gainable life-years gained, and screening effectiveness, as well as the relative disparities in lung cancer deaths prevented and life-years gained,” Dr. Landy said.
 

Results

Under the 2013 guidelines, 8 million ever-smokers were eligible. The disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity, compared to Whites, were 15% for African Americans, 15% for Asian Americans, and 24% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 15%, 13%, and 24%, respectively.

Under the 2020 draft guidelines, 14.5 million ever-smokers were eligible, but racial/ethnic disparities persisted. Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 13% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 27% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 16%, 19%, and 27%, respectively.

Using the LYFS-CT predictive-risk model added an additional 3.5 million people and “nearly eliminated” disparities for African Americans, Dr. Landy noted. However, disparities persisted for Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans.

Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 0% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 23% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 1%, 19%, and 24%, respectively.
 

More and widening disparity

The results showed that augmenting USPSTF criteria to include high-benefit people selected significantly more African Americans than Whites and could therefore reduce or even eliminate disparities between Whites and African Americans.

“The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations would make 6.5 million more people eligible to be screened, in addition to the 8 million from the 2013 criteria,” said Gerard Silvestri, MD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who was not involved in this study.

“But there will be more White people than African American people added, and the disparity between them may widen. Using the risk prediction model outlined in this well-researched study could close the gap in disparity. It’s important to identify individual risk and life expectancy.”

Dr. Silvestri pointed out that, compared to Whites, African Americans develop lung cancer at an earlier age with fewer pack-years history of smoking and have worse outcomes.

“We can’t just focus on one aspect of disparity,” he said. “African Americans are much less likely to be insured or to identify a primary care provider for integrated care. We know that screening works. The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations will enlarge the pool of eligible African Americans and reduce disparities if the other part of the equation holds; that is, they get access to care and screening.”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Dr. Landy and Dr. Silvestri have no disclosures.

New research suggests that proposed lung cancer screening guidelines could inadvertently increase racial and ethnic disparities, but adding in a risk prediction model could reduce some of these disparities by identifying people with high predicted benefit, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The draft United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2020 guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening for individuals aged 50-80 who currently smoke or quit in the last 15 years, and who have a smoking history equivalent to at least one pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years or more.

This expands the age range and smoking history requirement compared to the 2013 USPSTF recommendations in an attempt to partially ameliorate racial disparities in screening eligibility. The 2013 guidelines recommend screening ever-smokers aged 55-80 with 30 or more pack-years and 15 or fewer quit-years.

However, neither the 2013 nor the 2020 USPSTF recommendations consider the higher risk of lung cancer and younger ages at diagnosis among African Americans, despite their smoking less than Whites, according to Rebecca Landy, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

“For the same age and smoking history as Whites, minorities have substantially different lung cancer risk,” Dr. Landy said. “Incorporating individualized prediction models into USPSTF guidelines may reduce racial/ethnic disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility.”

Dr. Landy and colleagues set out to test that theory, and she presented the results at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3564), which was rescheduled for January 2021. The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Study details

Dr. Landy and colleagues modeled the performance of National Lung Screening Trial–like screening (three annual CT screens, 5 years of follow-up) among three cohorts of ever-smokers aged 50-80 using the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

One group was eligible by USPSTF 2013 guidelines, another by draft USPSTF 2020 guidelines, and yet another by augmenting the USPSTF 2020 guidelines using risk prediction to include individuals with 12 or more days of life gained according to the Life-Years From Screening–CT (LYFS-CT) model.

“Among each race/ethnicity, we calculated the number eligible for screening, proportion of preventable lung cancer deaths prevented, proportion of gainable life-years gained, and screening effectiveness, as well as the relative disparities in lung cancer deaths prevented and life-years gained,” Dr. Landy said.
 

Results

Under the 2013 guidelines, 8 million ever-smokers were eligible. The disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity, compared to Whites, were 15% for African Americans, 15% for Asian Americans, and 24% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 15%, 13%, and 24%, respectively.

Under the 2020 draft guidelines, 14.5 million ever-smokers were eligible, but racial/ethnic disparities persisted. Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 13% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 27% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 16%, 19%, and 27%, respectively.

Using the LYFS-CT predictive-risk model added an additional 3.5 million people and “nearly eliminated” disparities for African Americans, Dr. Landy noted. However, disparities persisted for Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans.

Disparities in lung cancer death sensitivity were 0% for African Americans, 19% for Asian Americans, and 23% for Hispanic Americans. Disparities for life-year gained sensitivity were 1%, 19%, and 24%, respectively.
 

More and widening disparity

The results showed that augmenting USPSTF criteria to include high-benefit people selected significantly more African Americans than Whites and could therefore reduce or even eliminate disparities between Whites and African Americans.

“The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations would make 6.5 million more people eligible to be screened, in addition to the 8 million from the 2013 criteria,” said Gerard Silvestri, MD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who was not involved in this study.

“But there will be more White people than African American people added, and the disparity between them may widen. Using the risk prediction model outlined in this well-researched study could close the gap in disparity. It’s important to identify individual risk and life expectancy.”

Dr. Silvestri pointed out that, compared to Whites, African Americans develop lung cancer at an earlier age with fewer pack-years history of smoking and have worse outcomes.

“We can’t just focus on one aspect of disparity,” he said. “African Americans are much less likely to be insured or to identify a primary care provider for integrated care. We know that screening works. The 2020 USPSTF draft recommendations will enlarge the pool of eligible African Americans and reduce disparities if the other part of the equation holds; that is, they get access to care and screening.”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. Dr. Landy and Dr. Silvestri have no disclosures.

Women at risk of preterm birth who took daily low-dose aspirin did not have significantly lower rates of preterm birth than those who did not take aspirin, according to preliminary findings from a small randomized controlled trial. There was a trend toward lower rates, especially among those with the highest compliance, but the study was underpowered to detect a difference with statistical significance, said Anadeijda Landman, MD, of the Amsterdam University Medical Center. Dr. Landman presented the findings Jan. 28 at a meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Preterm birth accounts for a third of all neonatal mortality, she told attendees. Among 15 million preterm births worldwide each year, 65% are spontaneous, indicating the need for effective preventive interventions. Dr. Landman reviewed several mechanisms by which aspirin may help reduce preterm birth via different pathways.

The researchers’ multicenter, placebo-controlled trial involved 8 tertiary care and 26 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands between May 2016 and June 2019. Starting between 8 and 15 weeks’ gestation, women took either 80 mg of aspirin or a placebo daily until 36 weeks’ gestation or delivery. Women also received progesterone, cerclage, or pessary as indicated according to local protocols.

The study enrolled 406 women with singleton pregnancy and a history of preterm birth delivered between 22 and 37 weeks’ gestation. The final analysis, after exclusions for pregnancy termination, congenital anomalies, multiples pregnancy, or similar reasons, included 193 women in the intervention group and 194 in the placebo group. The women had similar baseline characteristics across both groups except a higher number of past mid-trimester fetal deaths in the aspirin group.

“It’s important to realize these women had multiple preterm births, as one of our inclusion criteria was previous spontaneous preterm birth later than 22 weeks’ gestation, so this particular group is very high risk for cervical insufficiency as a probable cause,” Dr. Landman told attendees.

Among women in the aspirin group, 21.2% delivered before 37 weeks, compared with 25.4% in the placebo group (P = .323). The rate of spontaneous birth was 20.1% in the aspirin group and 23.8% in the placebo group (P = .376). Though still not statistically significant, the difference between the groups was larger when the researchers limited their analysis to the 245 women with at least 80% compliance: 18.5% of women in the aspirin group had a preterm birth, compared with 24.8% of women in the placebo group (P = .238).

There were no significant differences between the groups in composite poor neonatal outcomes or in a range of prespecified newborn complications. The aspirin group did have two stillbirths, two mid-trimester fetal losses, and two extremely preterm newborns (at 24+2 weeks and 25+2 weeks). The placebo group had two mid-trimester fetal losses.

“These deaths are inherent to the study population, and it seems unlikely they are related to the use of aspirin,” Dr. Landman said. “Moreover other aspirin studies have not found an increased perinatal mortality rate, and some large studies indicated the neonatal mortality rate is even reduced.”

Although preterm birth only trended lower in the aspirin group, Dr. Landman said the researchers believe they cannot rule out an effect from aspirin.

“It’s also important to note that our study was underpowered as the recurrence risk of preterm birth in our study was lower than expected, so it’s possible a small treatment effect of aspirin could not be demonstrated in our study,” she said. “And, despite the proper randomization procedure, many more women in the aspirin group had a previous mid-trimester fetal loss. This indicates that the aspirin group might be more at risk for preterm birth than the placebo group, and this imbalance could also have diminished a small protective effect of aspirin.”

In response to an audience question, Dr. Landman acknowledged that more recent studies on aspirin have used 100- to 150-mg dosages, but that evidence was not as clear when their study began in 2015. She added that her research team does not advise changing clinical care currently and believes it is too soon to recommend aspirin to this population.

Tracy Manuck, MD, MS, an associate professor of ob.gyn. at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, agreed that it is premature to begin prescribing aspirin for preterm birth prevention, but she noted that most of the patients she cares for clinically already meet criteria for aspirin based on their risk factors for preeclampsia.

“Additional research is needed in the form of a well-designed and large [randomized, controlled trial],” Dr Manuck, who moderated the session, said in an interview. “However, such a trial is becoming increasingly difficult to conduct because so many pregnant women qualify to receive aspirin for the prevention of preeclampsia due to their weight, medical comorbidities, or prior pregnancy history.”

She said she anticipates seeing patient-level data meta-analyses in the coming months as more data on aspirin for preterm birth prevention are published.

“Given that these data are supportive of the overall trends seen in prior publications, I do think that low-dose aspirin will eventually bear out as a helpful preventative measure to prevent recurrent preterm birth. Aspirin is low risk, readily available, and is inexpensive,” Dr. Manuck said. “I hope that meta-analysis data will provide additional information regarding the benefit of low-dose aspirin for prematurity prevention.”

The research was funded by the Dutch Organization for Health Care Research and the Dutch Consortium for Research in Women’s Health. Dr. Landman and Dr. Manuck had no disclosures.

Women at risk of preterm birth who took daily low-dose aspirin did not have significantly lower rates of preterm birth than those who did not take aspirin, according to preliminary findings from a small randomized controlled trial. There was a trend toward lower rates, especially among those with the highest compliance, but the study was underpowered to detect a difference with statistical significance, said Anadeijda Landman, MD, of the Amsterdam University Medical Center. Dr. Landman presented the findings Jan. 28 at a meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Preterm birth accounts for a third of all neonatal mortality, she told attendees. Among 15 million preterm births worldwide each year, 65% are spontaneous, indicating the need for effective preventive interventions. Dr. Landman reviewed several mechanisms by which aspirin may help reduce preterm birth via different pathways.

The researchers’ multicenter, placebo-controlled trial involved 8 tertiary care and 26 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands between May 2016 and June 2019. Starting between 8 and 15 weeks’ gestation, women took either 80 mg of aspirin or a placebo daily until 36 weeks’ gestation or delivery. Women also received progesterone, cerclage, or pessary as indicated according to local protocols.

The study enrolled 406 women with singleton pregnancy and a history of preterm birth delivered between 22 and 37 weeks’ gestation. The final analysis, after exclusions for pregnancy termination, congenital anomalies, multiples pregnancy, or similar reasons, included 193 women in the intervention group and 194 in the placebo group. The women had similar baseline characteristics across both groups except a higher number of past mid-trimester fetal deaths in the aspirin group.

“It’s important to realize these women had multiple preterm births, as one of our inclusion criteria was previous spontaneous preterm birth later than 22 weeks’ gestation, so this particular group is very high risk for cervical insufficiency as a probable cause,” Dr. Landman told attendees.

Among women in the aspirin group, 21.2% delivered before 37 weeks, compared with 25.4% in the placebo group (P = .323). The rate of spontaneous birth was 20.1% in the aspirin group and 23.8% in the placebo group (P = .376). Though still not statistically significant, the difference between the groups was larger when the researchers limited their analysis to the 245 women with at least 80% compliance: 18.5% of women in the aspirin group had a preterm birth, compared with 24.8% of women in the placebo group (P = .238).

There were no significant differences between the groups in composite poor neonatal outcomes or in a range of prespecified newborn complications. The aspirin group did have two stillbirths, two mid-trimester fetal losses, and two extremely preterm newborns (at 24+2 weeks and 25+2 weeks). The placebo group had two mid-trimester fetal losses.

“These deaths are inherent to the study population, and it seems unlikely they are related to the use of aspirin,” Dr. Landman said. “Moreover other aspirin studies have not found an increased perinatal mortality rate, and some large studies indicated the neonatal mortality rate is even reduced.”

Although preterm birth only trended lower in the aspirin group, Dr. Landman said the researchers believe they cannot rule out an effect from aspirin.

“It’s also important to note that our study was underpowered as the recurrence risk of preterm birth in our study was lower than expected, so it’s possible a small treatment effect of aspirin could not be demonstrated in our study,” she said. “And, despite the proper randomization procedure, many more women in the aspirin group had a previous mid-trimester fetal loss. This indicates that the aspirin group might be more at risk for preterm birth than the placebo group, and this imbalance could also have diminished a small protective effect of aspirin.”

In response to an audience question, Dr. Landman acknowledged that more recent studies on aspirin have used 100- to 150-mg dosages, but that evidence was not as clear when their study began in 2015. She added that her research team does not advise changing clinical care currently and believes it is too soon to recommend aspirin to this population.

Tracy Manuck, MD, MS, an associate professor of ob.gyn. at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, agreed that it is premature to begin prescribing aspirin for preterm birth prevention, but she noted that most of the patients she cares for clinically already meet criteria for aspirin based on their risk factors for preeclampsia.

“Additional research is needed in the form of a well-designed and large [randomized, controlled trial],” Dr Manuck, who moderated the session, said in an interview. “However, such a trial is becoming increasingly difficult to conduct because so many pregnant women qualify to receive aspirin for the prevention of preeclampsia due to their weight, medical comorbidities, or prior pregnancy history.”

She said she anticipates seeing patient-level data meta-analyses in the coming months as more data on aspirin for preterm birth prevention are published.

“Given that these data are supportive of the overall trends seen in prior publications, I do think that low-dose aspirin will eventually bear out as a helpful preventative measure to prevent recurrent preterm birth. Aspirin is low risk, readily available, and is inexpensive,” Dr. Manuck said. “I hope that meta-analysis data will provide additional information regarding the benefit of low-dose aspirin for prematurity prevention.”

The research was funded by the Dutch Organization for Health Care Research and the Dutch Consortium for Research in Women’s Health. Dr. Landman and Dr. Manuck had no disclosures.

Women at risk of preterm birth who took daily low-dose aspirin did not have significantly lower rates of preterm birth than those who did not take aspirin, according to preliminary findings from a small randomized controlled trial. There was a trend toward lower rates, especially among those with the highest compliance, but the study was underpowered to detect a difference with statistical significance, said Anadeijda Landman, MD, of the Amsterdam University Medical Center. Dr. Landman presented the findings Jan. 28 at a meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Preterm birth accounts for a third of all neonatal mortality, she told attendees. Among 15 million preterm births worldwide each year, 65% are spontaneous, indicating the need for effective preventive interventions. Dr. Landman reviewed several mechanisms by which aspirin may help reduce preterm birth via different pathways.

The researchers’ multicenter, placebo-controlled trial involved 8 tertiary care and 26 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands between May 2016 and June 2019. Starting between 8 and 15 weeks’ gestation, women took either 80 mg of aspirin or a placebo daily until 36 weeks’ gestation or delivery. Women also received progesterone, cerclage, or pessary as indicated according to local protocols.

The study enrolled 406 women with singleton pregnancy and a history of preterm birth delivered between 22 and 37 weeks’ gestation. The final analysis, after exclusions for pregnancy termination, congenital anomalies, multiples pregnancy, or similar reasons, included 193 women in the intervention group and 194 in the placebo group. The women had similar baseline characteristics across both groups except a higher number of past mid-trimester fetal deaths in the aspirin group.

“It’s important to realize these women had multiple preterm births, as one of our inclusion criteria was previous spontaneous preterm birth later than 22 weeks’ gestation, so this particular group is very high risk for cervical insufficiency as a probable cause,” Dr. Landman told attendees.

Among women in the aspirin group, 21.2% delivered before 37 weeks, compared with 25.4% in the placebo group (P = .323). The rate of spontaneous birth was 20.1% in the aspirin group and 23.8% in the placebo group (P = .376). Though still not statistically significant, the difference between the groups was larger when the researchers limited their analysis to the 245 women with at least 80% compliance: 18.5% of women in the aspirin group had a preterm birth, compared with 24.8% of women in the placebo group (P = .238).

There were no significant differences between the groups in composite poor neonatal outcomes or in a range of prespecified newborn complications. The aspirin group did have two stillbirths, two mid-trimester fetal losses, and two extremely preterm newborns (at 24+2 weeks and 25+2 weeks). The placebo group had two mid-trimester fetal losses.

“These deaths are inherent to the study population, and it seems unlikely they are related to the use of aspirin,” Dr. Landman said. “Moreover other aspirin studies have not found an increased perinatal mortality rate, and some large studies indicated the neonatal mortality rate is even reduced.”

Although preterm birth only trended lower in the aspirin group, Dr. Landman said the researchers believe they cannot rule out an effect from aspirin.

“It’s also important to note that our study was underpowered as the recurrence risk of preterm birth in our study was lower than expected, so it’s possible a small treatment effect of aspirin could not be demonstrated in our study,” she said. “And, despite the proper randomization procedure, many more women in the aspirin group had a previous mid-trimester fetal loss. This indicates that the aspirin group might be more at risk for preterm birth than the placebo group, and this imbalance could also have diminished a small protective effect of aspirin.”

In response to an audience question, Dr. Landman acknowledged that more recent studies on aspirin have used 100- to 150-mg dosages, but that evidence was not as clear when their study began in 2015. She added that her research team does not advise changing clinical care currently and believes it is too soon to recommend aspirin to this population.

Tracy Manuck, MD, MS, an associate professor of ob.gyn. at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, agreed that it is premature to begin prescribing aspirin for preterm birth prevention, but she noted that most of the patients she cares for clinically already meet criteria for aspirin based on their risk factors for preeclampsia.

“Additional research is needed in the form of a well-designed and large [randomized, controlled trial],” Dr Manuck, who moderated the session, said in an interview. “However, such a trial is becoming increasingly difficult to conduct because so many pregnant women qualify to receive aspirin for the prevention of preeclampsia due to their weight, medical comorbidities, or prior pregnancy history.”

She said she anticipates seeing patient-level data meta-analyses in the coming months as more data on aspirin for preterm birth prevention are published.

“Given that these data are supportive of the overall trends seen in prior publications, I do think that low-dose aspirin will eventually bear out as a helpful preventative measure to prevent recurrent preterm birth. Aspirin is low risk, readily available, and is inexpensive,” Dr. Manuck said. “I hope that meta-analysis data will provide additional information regarding the benefit of low-dose aspirin for prematurity prevention.”

The research was funded by the Dutch Organization for Health Care Research and the Dutch Consortium for Research in Women’s Health. Dr. Landman and Dr. Manuck had no disclosures.

Every day, around 1.5 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are being delivered across the United States, but oncologists and patient advocates say that patients with cancer are missing out.

While official bodies recommend that patients with cancer are given priority, only 16 states currently prioritize them in the vaccine rollout. The other 34 states have thus far not singled out patients with cancer for earlier vaccination.

This flies in the face of recommendations from heavy hitters such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American Association for Cancer Research.

All are in agreement: Patients on active cancer treatment should be prioritized for available vaccine because of their greater risk of death or complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“All municipalities, states, cities, and even individual hospitals have so far been left to their own devices to try to figure out what the best way to do this is and that often conflicts with other recommendations or guidelines,” said E. John Wherry, PhD, chair of the department of systems pharmacology and translational therapeutics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Wherry was on a panel at an AACR conference last week that discussed the failings of vaccine delivery to cancer patients.

During the meeting, lung cancer advocate Jill Feldman commented on the situation in Chicago, one of the jurisdictions that has not prioritized patients with cancer: “People don’t know what to do. ‘Do I need to sign up myself somewhere? Is my doctor’s office going to contact me?’ ”

Ms. Feldman said many people have called their cancer centers, “but cancer centers aren’t really providing updates directly to us. And they aren’t because they don’t have the information [either].”

Even in the 16 states that have ushered patients with cancer to the front of the line, the process for flagging these individuals is often unclear or nonexistent.

“Everyone that registers is basically on the same playing field ... because there’s no verification process. That’s very unfortunate,” said patient advocate Grace Cordovano, PhD, describing the vaccine sign-up process in New Jersey.

“It’s an easy fix,” said Dr. Cordovano. “Adding a few more fields [in the form] could really make a difference.”

COVID-19 fatality rates are twice as high in people with cancer than in people without cancer, according to a review published in December 2020 by the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force in the journal Cancer Discovery. Hematologic malignancies conferred an especially high risk.

“Any delay in vaccine access will result in loss of life that could be prevented with earlier access to vaccination,” AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, told this news organization at the time.

There are also sound epidemiologic reasons to prioritize high-risk cancer patients for the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Wherry said in an interview. “What we do in infectious disease is to think about where your transmission and your risks are highest,” he said, citing cancer treatment centers as examples.

People with hematologic malignancies also tend to be long-term viral shedders, he said, putting caregivers and health care staff at increased risk. “There’s a big, big impact [in vaccinating cancer patients] and the numbers are not small.”

The CDC’s Jan. 1 recommendation is that patients with cancer should be assigned to priority group 1c, along with other “persons aged 16-64 with other high-risk medical conditions.”

However, more recent guidance from the NCCN hastened the urgency, advising that “patients with cancer should be assigned to the [CDC] priority group 1b/c.”

Out of 16 states that currently prioritize patients with cancer, 3 states have exceeded official advice, placing patients with cancer in priority group 1a. They opened their first batches of vaccine to everyone “deemed extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 by hospital providers” (Florida), or to “16-64 years old with a chronic health condition” (Mississippi) and to “persons aged 16-64 with high-risk conditions” (Pennsylvania, some jurisdictions).

However, despite these heroic intentions, no jurisdiction appears to have specifically tackled the thorny issue of subgroups of cancer that are more urgent than others, and this worries oncologists.

“Not all cancer patients are the same,” said Marina Garassino, MD, a medical oncologist at the National Tumor Institute of Milan. She shared registry data with the AACR panelists indicating that COVID-19 mortality in thoracic and hematologic malignancies rises to 30%-40%, compared with 13% for cancer overall.

At the AACR meeting, Dr. Ribas summed up his feelings on the issue: “It’s clear to me that patients with cancer should be prioritized. We have to then start defining this population and it should be the patient with an active cancer diagnosis undergoing treatment, in particular patients with lung cancers or hematologic malignancies.”

Since patients with cancer as a whole have problems getting timely vaccination – let alone someone with lung cancer or leukemia – the AACR meeting panelists grappled with solutions.

Dr. Cordovano said it was a “no brainer” to start with cancer centers. “Patients there are already registered, they have an account in the electronic health record system, they have insurance information, the care team knows them.”

Vaccination referrals sent directly from oncology centers would eliminate the need for the patient to provide verification or any additional documentation, she pointed out.

However, in New Jersey, cancer centers “have been completely excluded from the process,” she said.  

Florida and New Hampshire have somewhat adopted the mechanism suggested by Dr. Cordovano. These states require health care providers to verify that a patient is “especially vulnerable” (Florida) or “medically vulnerable” (New Hampshire) in order for the patient to receive priority vaccine access. In New Hampshire, patients must have at least one other medical condition in addition to cancer to get on the list.

Jia Luo, MD, a medical oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, told the meeting that MSKCC has set up a proactive task force that sends “daily emails” to clinic staff highlighting patients eligible for the vaccine. “My sense is, it’s being prioritized to active cancer treatment,” said Dr. Luo. “All of our physicians are currently discussing [it] at each appointment and ... all of our nurses and staff have been talking to our patients on the phone.”

Dr. Cordovano, while advocating hard for cancer patients today, retained optimism about tomorrow: “This isn’t a long-term thing. This is just until things catch up. We knew we were going to have this problem.” Her hope is that, within 6 months, COVID-19 vaccination will become a standard of care in cancer.

Dr. Wherry agreed: “It’s going to take time to catch up with how far behind we are on certain things. ... What we’re seeing is a healthy debate rather than something that we should be concerned about – as long as that debate leads to rapid action.”

“We have to follow the science,” concluded Cordovano. “We can do better than this.”

Dr. Cordovano, Ms. Feldman, and Dr. Wherry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Luo declared a financial relationship with Targeted Oncology. Dr. Ribas declared financial relationships with 4C Biomed, Advaxis, Agilent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Kite-Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. 

Every day, around 1.5 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are being delivered across the United States, but oncologists and patient advocates say that patients with cancer are missing out.

While official bodies recommend that patients with cancer are given priority, only 16 states currently prioritize them in the vaccine rollout. The other 34 states have thus far not singled out patients with cancer for earlier vaccination.

This flies in the face of recommendations from heavy hitters such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American Association for Cancer Research.

All are in agreement: Patients on active cancer treatment should be prioritized for available vaccine because of their greater risk of death or complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“All municipalities, states, cities, and even individual hospitals have so far been left to their own devices to try to figure out what the best way to do this is and that often conflicts with other recommendations or guidelines,” said E. John Wherry, PhD, chair of the department of systems pharmacology and translational therapeutics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Wherry was on a panel at an AACR conference last week that discussed the failings of vaccine delivery to cancer patients.

During the meeting, lung cancer advocate Jill Feldman commented on the situation in Chicago, one of the jurisdictions that has not prioritized patients with cancer: “People don’t know what to do. ‘Do I need to sign up myself somewhere? Is my doctor’s office going to contact me?’ ”

Ms. Feldman said many people have called their cancer centers, “but cancer centers aren’t really providing updates directly to us. And they aren’t because they don’t have the information [either].”

Even in the 16 states that have ushered patients with cancer to the front of the line, the process for flagging these individuals is often unclear or nonexistent.

“Everyone that registers is basically on the same playing field ... because there’s no verification process. That’s very unfortunate,” said patient advocate Grace Cordovano, PhD, describing the vaccine sign-up process in New Jersey.

“It’s an easy fix,” said Dr. Cordovano. “Adding a few more fields [in the form] could really make a difference.”

COVID-19 fatality rates are twice as high in people with cancer than in people without cancer, according to a review published in December 2020 by the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force in the journal Cancer Discovery. Hematologic malignancies conferred an especially high risk.

“Any delay in vaccine access will result in loss of life that could be prevented with earlier access to vaccination,” AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, told this news organization at the time.

There are also sound epidemiologic reasons to prioritize high-risk cancer patients for the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Wherry said in an interview. “What we do in infectious disease is to think about where your transmission and your risks are highest,” he said, citing cancer treatment centers as examples.

People with hematologic malignancies also tend to be long-term viral shedders, he said, putting caregivers and health care staff at increased risk. “There’s a big, big impact [in vaccinating cancer patients] and the numbers are not small.”

The CDC’s Jan. 1 recommendation is that patients with cancer should be assigned to priority group 1c, along with other “persons aged 16-64 with other high-risk medical conditions.”

However, more recent guidance from the NCCN hastened the urgency, advising that “patients with cancer should be assigned to the [CDC] priority group 1b/c.”

Out of 16 states that currently prioritize patients with cancer, 3 states have exceeded official advice, placing patients with cancer in priority group 1a. They opened their first batches of vaccine to everyone “deemed extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 by hospital providers” (Florida), or to “16-64 years old with a chronic health condition” (Mississippi) and to “persons aged 16-64 with high-risk conditions” (Pennsylvania, some jurisdictions).

However, despite these heroic intentions, no jurisdiction appears to have specifically tackled the thorny issue of subgroups of cancer that are more urgent than others, and this worries oncologists.

“Not all cancer patients are the same,” said Marina Garassino, MD, a medical oncologist at the National Tumor Institute of Milan. She shared registry data with the AACR panelists indicating that COVID-19 mortality in thoracic and hematologic malignancies rises to 30%-40%, compared with 13% for cancer overall.

At the AACR meeting, Dr. Ribas summed up his feelings on the issue: “It’s clear to me that patients with cancer should be prioritized. We have to then start defining this population and it should be the patient with an active cancer diagnosis undergoing treatment, in particular patients with lung cancers or hematologic malignancies.”

Since patients with cancer as a whole have problems getting timely vaccination – let alone someone with lung cancer or leukemia – the AACR meeting panelists grappled with solutions.

Dr. Cordovano said it was a “no brainer” to start with cancer centers. “Patients there are already registered, they have an account in the electronic health record system, they have insurance information, the care team knows them.”

Vaccination referrals sent directly from oncology centers would eliminate the need for the patient to provide verification or any additional documentation, she pointed out.

However, in New Jersey, cancer centers “have been completely excluded from the process,” she said.  

Florida and New Hampshire have somewhat adopted the mechanism suggested by Dr. Cordovano. These states require health care providers to verify that a patient is “especially vulnerable” (Florida) or “medically vulnerable” (New Hampshire) in order for the patient to receive priority vaccine access. In New Hampshire, patients must have at least one other medical condition in addition to cancer to get on the list.

Jia Luo, MD, a medical oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, told the meeting that MSKCC has set up a proactive task force that sends “daily emails” to clinic staff highlighting patients eligible for the vaccine. “My sense is, it’s being prioritized to active cancer treatment,” said Dr. Luo. “All of our physicians are currently discussing [it] at each appointment and ... all of our nurses and staff have been talking to our patients on the phone.”

Dr. Cordovano, while advocating hard for cancer patients today, retained optimism about tomorrow: “This isn’t a long-term thing. This is just until things catch up. We knew we were going to have this problem.” Her hope is that, within 6 months, COVID-19 vaccination will become a standard of care in cancer.

Dr. Wherry agreed: “It’s going to take time to catch up with how far behind we are on certain things. ... What we’re seeing is a healthy debate rather than something that we should be concerned about – as long as that debate leads to rapid action.”

“We have to follow the science,” concluded Cordovano. “We can do better than this.”

Dr. Cordovano, Ms. Feldman, and Dr. Wherry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Luo declared a financial relationship with Targeted Oncology. Dr. Ribas declared financial relationships with 4C Biomed, Advaxis, Agilent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Kite-Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. 

Every day, around 1.5 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are being delivered across the United States, but oncologists and patient advocates say that patients with cancer are missing out.

While official bodies recommend that patients with cancer are given priority, only 16 states currently prioritize them in the vaccine rollout. The other 34 states have thus far not singled out patients with cancer for earlier vaccination.

This flies in the face of recommendations from heavy hitters such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American Association for Cancer Research.

All are in agreement: Patients on active cancer treatment should be prioritized for available vaccine because of their greater risk of death or complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“All municipalities, states, cities, and even individual hospitals have so far been left to their own devices to try to figure out what the best way to do this is and that often conflicts with other recommendations or guidelines,” said E. John Wherry, PhD, chair of the department of systems pharmacology and translational therapeutics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Wherry was on a panel at an AACR conference last week that discussed the failings of vaccine delivery to cancer patients.

During the meeting, lung cancer advocate Jill Feldman commented on the situation in Chicago, one of the jurisdictions that has not prioritized patients with cancer: “People don’t know what to do. ‘Do I need to sign up myself somewhere? Is my doctor’s office going to contact me?’ ”

Ms. Feldman said many people have called their cancer centers, “but cancer centers aren’t really providing updates directly to us. And they aren’t because they don’t have the information [either].”

Even in the 16 states that have ushered patients with cancer to the front of the line, the process for flagging these individuals is often unclear or nonexistent.

“Everyone that registers is basically on the same playing field ... because there’s no verification process. That’s very unfortunate,” said patient advocate Grace Cordovano, PhD, describing the vaccine sign-up process in New Jersey.

“It’s an easy fix,” said Dr. Cordovano. “Adding a few more fields [in the form] could really make a difference.”

COVID-19 fatality rates are twice as high in people with cancer than in people without cancer, according to a review published in December 2020 by the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force in the journal Cancer Discovery. Hematologic malignancies conferred an especially high risk.

“Any delay in vaccine access will result in loss of life that could be prevented with earlier access to vaccination,” AACR President Antoni Ribas, MD, told this news organization at the time.

There are also sound epidemiologic reasons to prioritize high-risk cancer patients for the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Wherry said in an interview. “What we do in infectious disease is to think about where your transmission and your risks are highest,” he said, citing cancer treatment centers as examples.

People with hematologic malignancies also tend to be long-term viral shedders, he said, putting caregivers and health care staff at increased risk. “There’s a big, big impact [in vaccinating cancer patients] and the numbers are not small.”

The CDC’s Jan. 1 recommendation is that patients with cancer should be assigned to priority group 1c, along with other “persons aged 16-64 with other high-risk medical conditions.”

However, more recent guidance from the NCCN hastened the urgency, advising that “patients with cancer should be assigned to the [CDC] priority group 1b/c.”

Out of 16 states that currently prioritize patients with cancer, 3 states have exceeded official advice, placing patients with cancer in priority group 1a. They opened their first batches of vaccine to everyone “deemed extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 by hospital providers” (Florida), or to “16-64 years old with a chronic health condition” (Mississippi) and to “persons aged 16-64 with high-risk conditions” (Pennsylvania, some jurisdictions).

However, despite these heroic intentions, no jurisdiction appears to have specifically tackled the thorny issue of subgroups of cancer that are more urgent than others, and this worries oncologists.

“Not all cancer patients are the same,” said Marina Garassino, MD, a medical oncologist at the National Tumor Institute of Milan. She shared registry data with the AACR panelists indicating that COVID-19 mortality in thoracic and hematologic malignancies rises to 30%-40%, compared with 13% for cancer overall.

At the AACR meeting, Dr. Ribas summed up his feelings on the issue: “It’s clear to me that patients with cancer should be prioritized. We have to then start defining this population and it should be the patient with an active cancer diagnosis undergoing treatment, in particular patients with lung cancers or hematologic malignancies.”

Since patients with cancer as a whole have problems getting timely vaccination – let alone someone with lung cancer or leukemia – the AACR meeting panelists grappled with solutions.

Dr. Cordovano said it was a “no brainer” to start with cancer centers. “Patients there are already registered, they have an account in the electronic health record system, they have insurance information, the care team knows them.”

Vaccination referrals sent directly from oncology centers would eliminate the need for the patient to provide verification or any additional documentation, she pointed out.

However, in New Jersey, cancer centers “have been completely excluded from the process,” she said.  

Florida and New Hampshire have somewhat adopted the mechanism suggested by Dr. Cordovano. These states require health care providers to verify that a patient is “especially vulnerable” (Florida) or “medically vulnerable” (New Hampshire) in order for the patient to receive priority vaccine access. In New Hampshire, patients must have at least one other medical condition in addition to cancer to get on the list.

Jia Luo, MD, a medical oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, told the meeting that MSKCC has set up a proactive task force that sends “daily emails” to clinic staff highlighting patients eligible for the vaccine. “My sense is, it’s being prioritized to active cancer treatment,” said Dr. Luo. “All of our physicians are currently discussing [it] at each appointment and ... all of our nurses and staff have been talking to our patients on the phone.”

Dr. Cordovano, while advocating hard for cancer patients today, retained optimism about tomorrow: “This isn’t a long-term thing. This is just until things catch up. We knew we were going to have this problem.” Her hope is that, within 6 months, COVID-19 vaccination will become a standard of care in cancer.

Dr. Wherry agreed: “It’s going to take time to catch up with how far behind we are on certain things. ... What we’re seeing is a healthy debate rather than something that we should be concerned about – as long as that debate leads to rapid action.”

“We have to follow the science,” concluded Cordovano. “We can do better than this.”

Dr. Cordovano, Ms. Feldman, and Dr. Wherry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Luo declared a financial relationship with Targeted Oncology. Dr. Ribas declared financial relationships with 4C Biomed, Advaxis, Agilent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Kite-Gilead.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. 

Tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy based on the expression of two molecular markers did not confer a survival advantage in patients with completely resected stage II-III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial.

The patients were randomized to receive investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or treatment tailored according to messenger RNA (mRNA) expression of two molecular markers – excision repair cross complementation 1 (ERCC1) and thymidylate synthase (TS).

There was no significant difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival between the treatment approaches. However, toxicity was less common among patients who received customized treatment.

These results, from the phase 3 ITACA trial, were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 1820), which was rescheduled to January 2021.

“There is a clear need to define patients most likely to derive survival benefit from adjuvant therapy and spare patients who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy due to the toxicity of such therapy,” said presenter Silvia Novello, MD, PhD, of the University of Turin in Italy. “mRNA expression of different genes has been correlated with the sensitivity or resistance to specific anticancer agents.”

With this in mind, Dr. Novello and colleagues conducted the ITACA trial. The researchers’ primary goal was to determine whether an adjuvant pharmacogenomic-driven approach was able to improve overall survival in completely resected NSCLC.
 

Patients and treatment

The researchers randomized 773 NSCLC patients within 5-8 weeks after radical surgery. Genomic analyses were performed soon after surgery, and patients were randomly assigned to investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or to tailored treatments defined by mRNA levels of ERCC1 and TS.

Patients with high ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received single-agent docetaxel if their TS level was high or pemetrexed monotherapy if their TS level was low.

Patients with low ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received cisplatin-gemcitabine if their TS level was high or cisplatin-pemetrexed if their TS was low.

The most frequent doublets used in control patients were cisplatin-gemcitabine and cisplatin-vinorelbine.

The demographic characteristics of the 384 patients randomized to tailored therapy and the 389 control subjects were well-balanced, Dr. Novello said. Two-thirds of patients had stage II disease, 11% were never smokers, and the vast majority had a lobectomy as the resection method.
 

Results

At a median follow-up of 28.2 months, the median overall survival was 96.4 months in the tailored therapy arm and 83.5 months in the control arm. The median recurrence-free survival was 64.4 months and 41.5 months, respectively.

“Adjuvant chemotherapy customization based on the primary tumor tissue mRNA expression of ERCC1 and TS did not significantly improve overall survival or recurrence-free survival,” Dr. Novello said. “There was a non–statistically significant trend for overall survival favoring the customized arm.”

Dr. Novello noted that, when the final analysis was performed, the study was underpowered, as only 46% of expected events were collected. Assuming the same hazard ratio point estimate and that the expected 336 events were collected, the hazard ratio estimate would be 0.76 (P = .012).

Grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in 32.6% of patients in the tailored therapy arm and 45.9% of those in the control arm (P < .001).

“It is important to underline that the treatment customization significantly improved the toxicity profile without compromising the efficacy,” Dr. Novello said.

She added that “more comprehensive and high-throughput diagnostic techniques will be needed in order to tailor adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without immunotherapy, in completely resected NSCLC.”

“The ITACA study is the largest adjuvant study tailored to ERCC1/TS status, and the results have been long-awaited,” said Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, a professor at Kindai University in Japan and president of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This trial should be praised for the mandated genomic analysis that was accomplished within a reasonably short time frame before random assignment. In addition, this trial confirmed that there is no biomarker strong enough to predict the efficacy of cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, the concept of customizing adjuvant therapy according to the genomic status of patients’ tumors is valid, leading to the recent demonstration in the ADAURA study of the superiority of osimertinib in delaying the postoperative recurrence of disease in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.”

The ITACA study was funded by University of Turin and Eli Lilly. Dr. Novello disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bohringer Ingelheim, Beigene, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Sanofi. Dr. Mitsudomi disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Pfizer, Merck, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, ThermoFisher, Guardant, Eisai, Amgen, and Johnson & Johnson.

Tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy based on the expression of two molecular markers did not confer a survival advantage in patients with completely resected stage II-III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial.

The patients were randomized to receive investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or treatment tailored according to messenger RNA (mRNA) expression of two molecular markers – excision repair cross complementation 1 (ERCC1) and thymidylate synthase (TS).

There was no significant difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival between the treatment approaches. However, toxicity was less common among patients who received customized treatment.

These results, from the phase 3 ITACA trial, were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 1820), which was rescheduled to January 2021.

“There is a clear need to define patients most likely to derive survival benefit from adjuvant therapy and spare patients who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy due to the toxicity of such therapy,” said presenter Silvia Novello, MD, PhD, of the University of Turin in Italy. “mRNA expression of different genes has been correlated with the sensitivity or resistance to specific anticancer agents.”

With this in mind, Dr. Novello and colleagues conducted the ITACA trial. The researchers’ primary goal was to determine whether an adjuvant pharmacogenomic-driven approach was able to improve overall survival in completely resected NSCLC.
 

Patients and treatment

The researchers randomized 773 NSCLC patients within 5-8 weeks after radical surgery. Genomic analyses were performed soon after surgery, and patients were randomly assigned to investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or to tailored treatments defined by mRNA levels of ERCC1 and TS.

Patients with high ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received single-agent docetaxel if their TS level was high or pemetrexed monotherapy if their TS level was low.

Patients with low ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received cisplatin-gemcitabine if their TS level was high or cisplatin-pemetrexed if their TS was low.

The most frequent doublets used in control patients were cisplatin-gemcitabine and cisplatin-vinorelbine.

The demographic characteristics of the 384 patients randomized to tailored therapy and the 389 control subjects were well-balanced, Dr. Novello said. Two-thirds of patients had stage II disease, 11% were never smokers, and the vast majority had a lobectomy as the resection method.
 

Results

At a median follow-up of 28.2 months, the median overall survival was 96.4 months in the tailored therapy arm and 83.5 months in the control arm. The median recurrence-free survival was 64.4 months and 41.5 months, respectively.

“Adjuvant chemotherapy customization based on the primary tumor tissue mRNA expression of ERCC1 and TS did not significantly improve overall survival or recurrence-free survival,” Dr. Novello said. “There was a non–statistically significant trend for overall survival favoring the customized arm.”

Dr. Novello noted that, when the final analysis was performed, the study was underpowered, as only 46% of expected events were collected. Assuming the same hazard ratio point estimate and that the expected 336 events were collected, the hazard ratio estimate would be 0.76 (P = .012).

Grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in 32.6% of patients in the tailored therapy arm and 45.9% of those in the control arm (P < .001).

“It is important to underline that the treatment customization significantly improved the toxicity profile without compromising the efficacy,” Dr. Novello said.

She added that “more comprehensive and high-throughput diagnostic techniques will be needed in order to tailor adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without immunotherapy, in completely resected NSCLC.”

“The ITACA study is the largest adjuvant study tailored to ERCC1/TS status, and the results have been long-awaited,” said Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, a professor at Kindai University in Japan and president of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This trial should be praised for the mandated genomic analysis that was accomplished within a reasonably short time frame before random assignment. In addition, this trial confirmed that there is no biomarker strong enough to predict the efficacy of cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, the concept of customizing adjuvant therapy according to the genomic status of patients’ tumors is valid, leading to the recent demonstration in the ADAURA study of the superiority of osimertinib in delaying the postoperative recurrence of disease in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.”

The ITACA study was funded by University of Turin and Eli Lilly. Dr. Novello disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bohringer Ingelheim, Beigene, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Sanofi. Dr. Mitsudomi disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Pfizer, Merck, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, ThermoFisher, Guardant, Eisai, Amgen, and Johnson & Johnson.

Tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy based on the expression of two molecular markers did not confer a survival advantage in patients with completely resected stage II-III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 3 trial.

The patients were randomized to receive investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or treatment tailored according to messenger RNA (mRNA) expression of two molecular markers – excision repair cross complementation 1 (ERCC1) and thymidylate synthase (TS).

There was no significant difference in overall survival or recurrence-free survival between the treatment approaches. However, toxicity was less common among patients who received customized treatment.

These results, from the phase 3 ITACA trial, were presented at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 1820), which was rescheduled to January 2021.

“There is a clear need to define patients most likely to derive survival benefit from adjuvant therapy and spare patients who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy due to the toxicity of such therapy,” said presenter Silvia Novello, MD, PhD, of the University of Turin in Italy. “mRNA expression of different genes has been correlated with the sensitivity or resistance to specific anticancer agents.”

With this in mind, Dr. Novello and colleagues conducted the ITACA trial. The researchers’ primary goal was to determine whether an adjuvant pharmacogenomic-driven approach was able to improve overall survival in completely resected NSCLC.
 

Patients and treatment

The researchers randomized 773 NSCLC patients within 5-8 weeks after radical surgery. Genomic analyses were performed soon after surgery, and patients were randomly assigned to investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy or to tailored treatments defined by mRNA levels of ERCC1 and TS.

Patients with high ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received single-agent docetaxel if their TS level was high or pemetrexed monotherapy if their TS level was low.

Patients with low ERCC1 mRNA expression who were randomized to tailored treatment received cisplatin-gemcitabine if their TS level was high or cisplatin-pemetrexed if their TS was low.

The most frequent doublets used in control patients were cisplatin-gemcitabine and cisplatin-vinorelbine.

The demographic characteristics of the 384 patients randomized to tailored therapy and the 389 control subjects were well-balanced, Dr. Novello said. Two-thirds of patients had stage II disease, 11% were never smokers, and the vast majority had a lobectomy as the resection method.
 

Results

At a median follow-up of 28.2 months, the median overall survival was 96.4 months in the tailored therapy arm and 83.5 months in the control arm. The median recurrence-free survival was 64.4 months and 41.5 months, respectively.

“Adjuvant chemotherapy customization based on the primary tumor tissue mRNA expression of ERCC1 and TS did not significantly improve overall survival or recurrence-free survival,” Dr. Novello said. “There was a non–statistically significant trend for overall survival favoring the customized arm.”

Dr. Novello noted that, when the final analysis was performed, the study was underpowered, as only 46% of expected events were collected. Assuming the same hazard ratio point estimate and that the expected 336 events were collected, the hazard ratio estimate would be 0.76 (P = .012).

Grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in 32.6% of patients in the tailored therapy arm and 45.9% of those in the control arm (P < .001).

“It is important to underline that the treatment customization significantly improved the toxicity profile without compromising the efficacy,” Dr. Novello said.

She added that “more comprehensive and high-throughput diagnostic techniques will be needed in order to tailor adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without immunotherapy, in completely resected NSCLC.”

“The ITACA study is the largest adjuvant study tailored to ERCC1/TS status, and the results have been long-awaited,” said Tetsuya Mitsudomi, MD, a professor at Kindai University in Japan and president of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This trial should be praised for the mandated genomic analysis that was accomplished within a reasonably short time frame before random assignment. In addition, this trial confirmed that there is no biomarker strong enough to predict the efficacy of cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, the concept of customizing adjuvant therapy according to the genomic status of patients’ tumors is valid, leading to the recent demonstration in the ADAURA study of the superiority of osimertinib in delaying the postoperative recurrence of disease in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.”

The ITACA study was funded by University of Turin and Eli Lilly. Dr. Novello disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bohringer Ingelheim, Beigene, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Sanofi. Dr. Mitsudomi disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Pfizer, Merck, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, ThermoFisher, Guardant, Eisai, Amgen, and Johnson & Johnson.

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

An artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic system based on neural networks may assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19, according to a pilot study.

The system, called CXR-Net, was trained to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 chest x-rays (CXRs) from CXRs that are either normal or non–COVID-19 lung pathologies, explained Abdulah Haikal, an MD candidate at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Mr. Haikal described CXR-Net at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S11-04).

CXR-Net is a two-module pipeline, Mr. Haikal explained. Module I is based on Res-CR-Net, a type of neural network originally designed for the semantic segmentation of microscopy images, with the ability to retain the original resolution of the input images in the feature maps of all layers and in the final output.

Module II is a hybrid convolutional neural network in which the first convolutional layer with learned coefficients is replaced by a layer with fixed coefficients provided by the Wavelet Scattering Transform. Module II inputs patients’ CXRs and corresponding lung masks quantified by Module I, and generates as outputs a class assignment (COVID-19 or non–COVID-19) and high-resolution heat maps that detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome–-associated lung regions.

“The system is trained to differentiate COVID and non-COVID pathologies and produces a highly discriminative heat map to point to lung regions where COVID is suspected,” Mr. Haikal said. “The Wavelet Scattering Transform allows for fast determination of COVID versus non-COVID CXRs.”
 

Preliminary results and implications

CXR-Net was piloted on a small dataset of CXRs from non–COVID-19 and polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 patients acquired at a single center in Detroit.

Upon fivefold cross validation of the training set with 2,265 images, 90% accuracy was observed when the training set was tested against the validation set. However, once 1,532 new images were introduced, a 76% accuracy rate was observed.

The F1 scores were 0.81 and 0.70 for the training and test sets, respectively.

“I’m really excited about this new approach, and I think AI will allow us to do more with less, which is exciting,” said Ross L. Levine, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who led a discussion session with Mr. Haikal about CXR-Net.

One question raised during the discussion was whether the technology will help health care providers be more thoughtful about when and how they image COVID-19 patients.

“The more data you feed into the system, the stronger and more accurate it becomes,” Mr. Haikal said. “However, until we have data sharing from multiple centers, we won’t see improved accuracy results.”

Another question was whether this technology could be integrated with more clinical parameters.

“Some individuals are afraid that AI will replace the job of a professional, but it will only make it better for us,” Mr. Haikal said. “We don’t rely on current imaging techniques to make a definitive diagnosis, but rather have a specificity and sensitivity to establish a diagnosis, and AI can be used in the same way as a diagnostic tool.”

Mr. Haikal and Dr. Levine disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab prior to lung cancer surgery was well tolerated by patients with stage IB-IIIB lung cancer and produced a 21% major pathologic response rate, according to the primary analysis of the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) 3 study.

Small pilot studies previously suggested that preoperative immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may benefit patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The LCMC3 study is “unique” because it is the largest monotherapy trial of checkpoint inhibition in resectable NSCLC, and it’s “a landmark study” because it validated results from smaller trials and can serve as a benchmark for future ones, said Jay M. Lee, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee presented results from LCMC3 at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract PS01.05), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The study included 181 patients, median age 65 years, with stage IB-IIIB NSCLC. The vast majority (90%) of patients were current/former smokers, and two-thirds had a nonsquamous histology. Patients were categorized in the following stages: 17 patients were staged at IB, 20 were IIA, 55 were IIB, 72 were IIIA, and 17 were IIIB.

Patients received 1,200 mg of neoadjuvant atezolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles followed by resection between 30 and 50 days from the first cycle. Patients who benefited from the therapy continued adjuvant atezolizumab for 12 months.

The primary endpoint was major pathological response, defined as no more than 10% viable tumor cells at surgery, in patients without epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations.
 

Results

Following atezolizumab treatment, 43% of patients were down-staged, and 19% were up-staged. Some degree of pathological regression was observed in all but 3 of the 159 patients who underwent resection.

Among the 144 patients included in the efficacy analysis, the major pathological response rate was 21%, with 7% of patients achieving a complete pathological response.

“We demonstrated that more than half of patients resected with a minimally invasive operation. Remarkably, only 15% required thoracotomy. The 92% complete resection rate is comparable, if not superior to, preoperative chemotherapy trials,” Dr. Lee said.

The majority (88%) of patients underwent surgical resection within a 20-day protocol window. The median time from end of neoadjuvant therapy to surgery was 22 days.

“Historically, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy window is much later for surgery, 3 weeks from neoadjuvant therapy, and that can be stretched to up to 56 days,” Dr. Lee said.

In an exploratory analysis, the 1.5-year overall survival rate was 91% for stage I and II disease and 87% for stage III disease. The survival in both cohorts was superior to that expected historically, Dr. Lee noted.

Intraoperative complications were rare (3%). Postoperative adverse reactions correlated with fewer viable tumor cells in the resected specimen.

One patient died following surgery after the first 30 days, which was deemed unrelated to treatment. Another patient died between 30 and 90 days from treatment-related pneumonitis.

“The LCMC3 study successfully met its primary endpoint of achieving major pathological response,” Dr. Lee concluded. “Neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy was well tolerated, and resection was performed with low perioperative morbidity and mortality, usually within a narrow protocol window and with a short time frame from completion of atezolizumab and with a correspondingly high complete resection rate.”

The study’s results suggest that “neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy is effective, well tolerated, and surgically acceptable,” said study discussant Shinichi Toyooka, MD, of Okayama (Japan) University Hospital.

“I would consider single-agent ICI neoadjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage disease and poor performance status, and an ICI plus chemotherapy for more advanced resectable cases, like locally advanced disease,” Dr. Toyooka said.

The LCMC3 study is sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Lee disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Toyooka disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Chugai, Taiho Pharmaceutical Group, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab prior to lung cancer surgery was well tolerated by patients with stage IB-IIIB lung cancer and produced a 21% major pathologic response rate, according to the primary analysis of the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) 3 study.

Small pilot studies previously suggested that preoperative immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may benefit patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The LCMC3 study is “unique” because it is the largest monotherapy trial of checkpoint inhibition in resectable NSCLC, and it’s “a landmark study” because it validated results from smaller trials and can serve as a benchmark for future ones, said Jay M. Lee, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee presented results from LCMC3 at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract PS01.05), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The study included 181 patients, median age 65 years, with stage IB-IIIB NSCLC. The vast majority (90%) of patients were current/former smokers, and two-thirds had a nonsquamous histology. Patients were categorized in the following stages: 17 patients were staged at IB, 20 were IIA, 55 were IIB, 72 were IIIA, and 17 were IIIB.

Patients received 1,200 mg of neoadjuvant atezolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles followed by resection between 30 and 50 days from the first cycle. Patients who benefited from the therapy continued adjuvant atezolizumab for 12 months.

The primary endpoint was major pathological response, defined as no more than 10% viable tumor cells at surgery, in patients without epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations.
 

Results

Following atezolizumab treatment, 43% of patients were down-staged, and 19% were up-staged. Some degree of pathological regression was observed in all but 3 of the 159 patients who underwent resection.

Among the 144 patients included in the efficacy analysis, the major pathological response rate was 21%, with 7% of patients achieving a complete pathological response.

“We demonstrated that more than half of patients resected with a minimally invasive operation. Remarkably, only 15% required thoracotomy. The 92% complete resection rate is comparable, if not superior to, preoperative chemotherapy trials,” Dr. Lee said.

The majority (88%) of patients underwent surgical resection within a 20-day protocol window. The median time from end of neoadjuvant therapy to surgery was 22 days.

“Historically, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy window is much later for surgery, 3 weeks from neoadjuvant therapy, and that can be stretched to up to 56 days,” Dr. Lee said.

In an exploratory analysis, the 1.5-year overall survival rate was 91% for stage I and II disease and 87% for stage III disease. The survival in both cohorts was superior to that expected historically, Dr. Lee noted.

Intraoperative complications were rare (3%). Postoperative adverse reactions correlated with fewer viable tumor cells in the resected specimen.

One patient died following surgery after the first 30 days, which was deemed unrelated to treatment. Another patient died between 30 and 90 days from treatment-related pneumonitis.

“The LCMC3 study successfully met its primary endpoint of achieving major pathological response,” Dr. Lee concluded. “Neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy was well tolerated, and resection was performed with low perioperative morbidity and mortality, usually within a narrow protocol window and with a short time frame from completion of atezolizumab and with a correspondingly high complete resection rate.”

The study’s results suggest that “neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy is effective, well tolerated, and surgically acceptable,” said study discussant Shinichi Toyooka, MD, of Okayama (Japan) University Hospital.

“I would consider single-agent ICI neoadjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage disease and poor performance status, and an ICI plus chemotherapy for more advanced resectable cases, like locally advanced disease,” Dr. Toyooka said.

The LCMC3 study is sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Lee disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Toyooka disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Chugai, Taiho Pharmaceutical Group, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab prior to lung cancer surgery was well tolerated by patients with stage IB-IIIB lung cancer and produced a 21% major pathologic response rate, according to the primary analysis of the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) 3 study.

Small pilot studies previously suggested that preoperative immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may benefit patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The LCMC3 study is “unique” because it is the largest monotherapy trial of checkpoint inhibition in resectable NSCLC, and it’s “a landmark study” because it validated results from smaller trials and can serve as a benchmark for future ones, said Jay M. Lee, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Lee presented results from LCMC3 at the 2020 World Congress on Lung Cancer (Abstract PS01.05), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

The study included 181 patients, median age 65 years, with stage IB-IIIB NSCLC. The vast majority (90%) of patients were current/former smokers, and two-thirds had a nonsquamous histology. Patients were categorized in the following stages: 17 patients were staged at IB, 20 were IIA, 55 were IIB, 72 were IIIA, and 17 were IIIB.

Patients received 1,200 mg of neoadjuvant atezolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles followed by resection between 30 and 50 days from the first cycle. Patients who benefited from the therapy continued adjuvant atezolizumab for 12 months.

The primary endpoint was major pathological response, defined as no more than 10% viable tumor cells at surgery, in patients without epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations.
 

Results

Following atezolizumab treatment, 43% of patients were down-staged, and 19% were up-staged. Some degree of pathological regression was observed in all but 3 of the 159 patients who underwent resection.

Among the 144 patients included in the efficacy analysis, the major pathological response rate was 21%, with 7% of patients achieving a complete pathological response.

“We demonstrated that more than half of patients resected with a minimally invasive operation. Remarkably, only 15% required thoracotomy. The 92% complete resection rate is comparable, if not superior to, preoperative chemotherapy trials,” Dr. Lee said.

The majority (88%) of patients underwent surgical resection within a 20-day protocol window. The median time from end of neoadjuvant therapy to surgery was 22 days.

“Historically, the neoadjuvant chemotherapy window is much later for surgery, 3 weeks from neoadjuvant therapy, and that can be stretched to up to 56 days,” Dr. Lee said.

In an exploratory analysis, the 1.5-year overall survival rate was 91% for stage I and II disease and 87% for stage III disease. The survival in both cohorts was superior to that expected historically, Dr. Lee noted.

Intraoperative complications were rare (3%). Postoperative adverse reactions correlated with fewer viable tumor cells in the resected specimen.

One patient died following surgery after the first 30 days, which was deemed unrelated to treatment. Another patient died between 30 and 90 days from treatment-related pneumonitis.

“The LCMC3 study successfully met its primary endpoint of achieving major pathological response,” Dr. Lee concluded. “Neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy was well tolerated, and resection was performed with low perioperative morbidity and mortality, usually within a narrow protocol window and with a short time frame from completion of atezolizumab and with a correspondingly high complete resection rate.”

The study’s results suggest that “neoadjuvant atezolizumab monotherapy is effective, well tolerated, and surgically acceptable,” said study discussant Shinichi Toyooka, MD, of Okayama (Japan) University Hospital.

“I would consider single-agent ICI neoadjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage disease and poor performance status, and an ICI plus chemotherapy for more advanced resectable cases, like locally advanced disease,” Dr. Toyooka said.

The LCMC3 study is sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Lee disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Toyooka disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Chugai, Taiho Pharmaceutical Group, and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Factor VIII replacement therapies and gene therapy may soon reduce the need for factor VIII concentrate in hemophilia A, but concentrate, a staple of therapy for hemophilia A since the 1950s, will still likely have a role in certain circumstances, a hematology expert said.

“Factor VIII concentrate therapy should still be available for hemophilia A therapy in the future, for the treatment of breakthrough bleeds in non–factor substitution therapy cases, to obtain retain reliable levels of laboratory-measurable hemostatic activity, for enhanced global access to hemophilia A therapy, and finally – and somewhat speculatively – to treat nonhemostatic functions if these are better defined in future preclinical investigations,” said David Lillicrap, MD, from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.

He discussed factor VIII biology and the pros and cons of alternatives to factor VIII concentrate at the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.
 

One factor, multiple sources

It has been known since at least the late 1960s and early ‘70s that the liver is a significant source of factor VIII, primarily through liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs), but more recent studies have revealed other, nonhepatic sites of factor VIII expression, including the kidneys, lungs, spleen, lymph nodes, heat, intestines, skin an pulmonary artery, he said.

Endothelial cells proven to express factor VIII included LSECs, lymphatic endothelium, glomerular endothelium, and high endothelial venules.

“This information suggests that maybe a site of factor VIII synthesis could be important for a function that we do not yet appreciate. This is speculation, of course, but this is an unusual and enigmatic group of cells, and perhaps we’re missing something here that’s biologically important,” he said.

In addition to hemophilia, factor VIII deficiency may contribute to nonhemostatic pathologies, such as osteopenia/osteoporosis and hypertension, the latter possibly related to multiple renal bleeds or endothelial cell vasomotor dysfunction, he noted.

Despite decades-long experience with factor VIII concentrates, there are still uncertainties regarding optimal effective dosing, and about the mechanisms and management of factor VIII immunogenicity, both primary inhibitor development and immune tolerance induction, Dr. Lillicrap said.
 

Alternative therapies

Both factor VIII mimetics such as emicizumab (Hemlibra) and hemostasis rebalancing agents such as fitusiran, anti–tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) antibody and activated protein C serine protease inhibitor (APC serpin) require only infrequent subcutaneous administration, are efficacious in patients with factor VIII inhibitors, and are supported by either robust phase 3 data (in the case of mimetics) or evidence from late-phase clinical trials (in the case of the rebalancing agents).

However, “for the factor VIII mimetics we know that only partial factor VIII mimetic function, somewhere in the region of 10%-15% is obtained, and because of this, breakthrough bleeds do occur in these patients,” he said.

Additionally, the mimetics have been associated with rare, sometimes poorly explained thromboembolic complications, especially when they are given concurrently with activated prothrombin complex concentrate. Mimetic are also associated with infrequent development of antidrug antibodies, and “the fact that the factor VIII mimetic function is always ‘on’ is potentially a problem.”

For the rebalancing hemostasis agents, there are concerns about the ability to respond to dynamic challenges to the hemostatic system, such as sepsis or following trauma. These agents are also associated, albeit infrequently, with thromboembolic events, and they are somewhat difficult to monitor, he said.
 

Gene therapy

Gene therapy for hemophilia has the advantages of a single administration for a long-term effect, avoiding the peaks and troughs associated with substitution therapy, and the potential for being less immunogenic than factor VIII protein replacement.

The downside of gene therapy is that some patients may be ineligible for it because of preexisting immunity in about 50% of the population to the adeno-associated virus vectors used to carry the corrective gene.

Additional limitations are the occurrence in about 60% of patients of early although usually transient hepatotoxicity, significant variability in the factor levels ultimately attained, uncertainties about the durability of response, and the potential for long-term genotoxicity, Dr. Lillicrap said.
 

Tolerance for factor VIII

In the question and answer session following the presentation, session moderator Hervé Chambost, MD, from University Hospital La Timone and Aix-Marseille University, both in Marseille, France, asked whether there was a role for factor VIII and immune tolerance therapy (ITI) among patients who have been treated with non–factor replacement therapy.

“Is it important to have an antigenic pressure to maintain factor VIII or not for these patients?” he asked.

“I think this is a critical issue, and it’s an issue that we don’t yet have objective evidence for,” Dr. Lillicrap replied. “But the idea that we need to introduce some antigenic exposure to factor VIII in these individuals is a reasonable one, whether that be with intermittent exposure to factor VIII – weekly, monthly – we simply have no idea, but I think factor VIII will still be required in these patients because of breakthrough bleeds in patients who have been treated with non–factor replacement. So maintaining tolerance is a critical issue, and we need to develop maybe prospective trials to look at what those protocols are going to be to maintain tolerance in these patients.”

“As important, if not more so, is whether children should be tolerized at all,” commented Dan Hart, PhD, from Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, who also presented data during the session.

“The U.K. currently takes the view that, in children, new inhibitors arising may be delayed into the latter part of the first decade of their life if they have not had factors as their first choice but have had [replacement] on demand. I think we are heading into challenging times of understanding how to deliver ITI to larger children, how acceptable that is, and how we do it, but enabling [factor] VIII to be used long term rather than tolerating a chronic inhibitor I think is a really important issue where we need to head toward some consensus,” he said.

No funding source was reported. Dr. Lillicrap disclosed research funding from and advisory roles for several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hart disclosed grant/research support and speakers bureau activity for various companies. Dr. Chambost has previously reported no disclosures relevant to the topic at hand.

Factor VIII replacement therapies and gene therapy may soon reduce the need for factor VIII concentrate in hemophilia A, but concentrate, a staple of therapy for hemophilia A since the 1950s, will still likely have a role in certain circumstances, a hematology expert said.

“Factor VIII concentrate therapy should still be available for hemophilia A therapy in the future, for the treatment of breakthrough bleeds in non–factor substitution therapy cases, to obtain retain reliable levels of laboratory-measurable hemostatic activity, for enhanced global access to hemophilia A therapy, and finally – and somewhat speculatively – to treat nonhemostatic functions if these are better defined in future preclinical investigations,” said David Lillicrap, MD, from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.

He discussed factor VIII biology and the pros and cons of alternatives to factor VIII concentrate at the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.
 

One factor, multiple sources

It has been known since at least the late 1960s and early ‘70s that the liver is a significant source of factor VIII, primarily through liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs), but more recent studies have revealed other, nonhepatic sites of factor VIII expression, including the kidneys, lungs, spleen, lymph nodes, heat, intestines, skin an pulmonary artery, he said.

Endothelial cells proven to express factor VIII included LSECs, lymphatic endothelium, glomerular endothelium, and high endothelial venules.

“This information suggests that maybe a site of factor VIII synthesis could be important for a function that we do not yet appreciate. This is speculation, of course, but this is an unusual and enigmatic group of cells, and perhaps we’re missing something here that’s biologically important,” he said.

In addition to hemophilia, factor VIII deficiency may contribute to nonhemostatic pathologies, such as osteopenia/osteoporosis and hypertension, the latter possibly related to multiple renal bleeds or endothelial cell vasomotor dysfunction, he noted.

Despite decades-long experience with factor VIII concentrates, there are still uncertainties regarding optimal effective dosing, and about the mechanisms and management of factor VIII immunogenicity, both primary inhibitor development and immune tolerance induction, Dr. Lillicrap said.
 

Alternative therapies

Both factor VIII mimetics such as emicizumab (Hemlibra) and hemostasis rebalancing agents such as fitusiran, anti–tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) antibody and activated protein C serine protease inhibitor (APC serpin) require only infrequent subcutaneous administration, are efficacious in patients with factor VIII inhibitors, and are supported by either robust phase 3 data (in the case of mimetics) or evidence from late-phase clinical trials (in the case of the rebalancing agents).

However, “for the factor VIII mimetics we know that only partial factor VIII mimetic function, somewhere in the region of 10%-15% is obtained, and because of this, breakthrough bleeds do occur in these patients,” he said.

Additionally, the mimetics have been associated with rare, sometimes poorly explained thromboembolic complications, especially when they are given concurrently with activated prothrombin complex concentrate. Mimetic are also associated with infrequent development of antidrug antibodies, and “the fact that the factor VIII mimetic function is always ‘on’ is potentially a problem.”

For the rebalancing hemostasis agents, there are concerns about the ability to respond to dynamic challenges to the hemostatic system, such as sepsis or following trauma. These agents are also associated, albeit infrequently, with thromboembolic events, and they are somewhat difficult to monitor, he said.
 

Gene therapy

Gene therapy for hemophilia has the advantages of a single administration for a long-term effect, avoiding the peaks and troughs associated with substitution therapy, and the potential for being less immunogenic than factor VIII protein replacement.

The downside of gene therapy is that some patients may be ineligible for it because of preexisting immunity in about 50% of the population to the adeno-associated virus vectors used to carry the corrective gene.

Additional limitations are the occurrence in about 60% of patients of early although usually transient hepatotoxicity, significant variability in the factor levels ultimately attained, uncertainties about the durability of response, and the potential for long-term genotoxicity, Dr. Lillicrap said.
 

Tolerance for factor VIII

In the question and answer session following the presentation, session moderator Hervé Chambost, MD, from University Hospital La Timone and Aix-Marseille University, both in Marseille, France, asked whether there was a role for factor VIII and immune tolerance therapy (ITI) among patients who have been treated with non–factor replacement therapy.

“Is it important to have an antigenic pressure to maintain factor VIII or not for these patients?” he asked.

“I think this is a critical issue, and it’s an issue that we don’t yet have objective evidence for,” Dr. Lillicrap replied. “But the idea that we need to introduce some antigenic exposure to factor VIII in these individuals is a reasonable one, whether that be with intermittent exposure to factor VIII – weekly, monthly – we simply have no idea, but I think factor VIII will still be required in these patients because of breakthrough bleeds in patients who have been treated with non–factor replacement. So maintaining tolerance is a critical issue, and we need to develop maybe prospective trials to look at what those protocols are going to be to maintain tolerance in these patients.”

“As important, if not more so, is whether children should be tolerized at all,” commented Dan Hart, PhD, from Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, who also presented data during the session.

“The U.K. currently takes the view that, in children, new inhibitors arising may be delayed into the latter part of the first decade of their life if they have not had factors as their first choice but have had [replacement] on demand. I think we are heading into challenging times of understanding how to deliver ITI to larger children, how acceptable that is, and how we do it, but enabling [factor] VIII to be used long term rather than tolerating a chronic inhibitor I think is a really important issue where we need to head toward some consensus,” he said.

No funding source was reported. Dr. Lillicrap disclosed research funding from and advisory roles for several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hart disclosed grant/research support and speakers bureau activity for various companies. Dr. Chambost has previously reported no disclosures relevant to the topic at hand.

Factor VIII replacement therapies and gene therapy may soon reduce the need for factor VIII concentrate in hemophilia A, but concentrate, a staple of therapy for hemophilia A since the 1950s, will still likely have a role in certain circumstances, a hematology expert said.

“Factor VIII concentrate therapy should still be available for hemophilia A therapy in the future, for the treatment of breakthrough bleeds in non–factor substitution therapy cases, to obtain retain reliable levels of laboratory-measurable hemostatic activity, for enhanced global access to hemophilia A therapy, and finally – and somewhat speculatively – to treat nonhemostatic functions if these are better defined in future preclinical investigations,” said David Lillicrap, MD, from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.

He discussed factor VIII biology and the pros and cons of alternatives to factor VIII concentrate at the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.
 

One factor, multiple sources

It has been known since at least the late 1960s and early ‘70s that the liver is a significant source of factor VIII, primarily through liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs), but more recent studies have revealed other, nonhepatic sites of factor VIII expression, including the kidneys, lungs, spleen, lymph nodes, heat, intestines, skin an pulmonary artery, he said.

Endothelial cells proven to express factor VIII included LSECs, lymphatic endothelium, glomerular endothelium, and high endothelial venules.

“This information suggests that maybe a site of factor VIII synthesis could be important for a function that we do not yet appreciate. This is speculation, of course, but this is an unusual and enigmatic group of cells, and perhaps we’re missing something here that’s biologically important,” he said.

In addition to hemophilia, factor VIII deficiency may contribute to nonhemostatic pathologies, such as osteopenia/osteoporosis and hypertension, the latter possibly related to multiple renal bleeds or endothelial cell vasomotor dysfunction, he noted.

Despite decades-long experience with factor VIII concentrates, there are still uncertainties regarding optimal effective dosing, and about the mechanisms and management of factor VIII immunogenicity, both primary inhibitor development and immune tolerance induction, Dr. Lillicrap said.
 

Alternative therapies

Both factor VIII mimetics such as emicizumab (Hemlibra) and hemostasis rebalancing agents such as fitusiran, anti–tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) antibody and activated protein C serine protease inhibitor (APC serpin) require only infrequent subcutaneous administration, are efficacious in patients with factor VIII inhibitors, and are supported by either robust phase 3 data (in the case of mimetics) or evidence from late-phase clinical trials (in the case of the rebalancing agents).

However, “for the factor VIII mimetics we know that only partial factor VIII mimetic function, somewhere in the region of 10%-15% is obtained, and because of this, breakthrough bleeds do occur in these patients,” he said.

Additionally, the mimetics have been associated with rare, sometimes poorly explained thromboembolic complications, especially when they are given concurrently with activated prothrombin complex concentrate. Mimetic are also associated with infrequent development of antidrug antibodies, and “the fact that the factor VIII mimetic function is always ‘on’ is potentially a problem.”

For the rebalancing hemostasis agents, there are concerns about the ability to respond to dynamic challenges to the hemostatic system, such as sepsis or following trauma. These agents are also associated, albeit infrequently, with thromboembolic events, and they are somewhat difficult to monitor, he said.
 

Gene therapy

Gene therapy for hemophilia has the advantages of a single administration for a long-term effect, avoiding the peaks and troughs associated with substitution therapy, and the potential for being less immunogenic than factor VIII protein replacement.

The downside of gene therapy is that some patients may be ineligible for it because of preexisting immunity in about 50% of the population to the adeno-associated virus vectors used to carry the corrective gene.

Additional limitations are the occurrence in about 60% of patients of early although usually transient hepatotoxicity, significant variability in the factor levels ultimately attained, uncertainties about the durability of response, and the potential for long-term genotoxicity, Dr. Lillicrap said.
 

Tolerance for factor VIII

In the question and answer session following the presentation, session moderator Hervé Chambost, MD, from University Hospital La Timone and Aix-Marseille University, both in Marseille, France, asked whether there was a role for factor VIII and immune tolerance therapy (ITI) among patients who have been treated with non–factor replacement therapy.

“Is it important to have an antigenic pressure to maintain factor VIII or not for these patients?” he asked.

“I think this is a critical issue, and it’s an issue that we don’t yet have objective evidence for,” Dr. Lillicrap replied. “But the idea that we need to introduce some antigenic exposure to factor VIII in these individuals is a reasonable one, whether that be with intermittent exposure to factor VIII – weekly, monthly – we simply have no idea, but I think factor VIII will still be required in these patients because of breakthrough bleeds in patients who have been treated with non–factor replacement. So maintaining tolerance is a critical issue, and we need to develop maybe prospective trials to look at what those protocols are going to be to maintain tolerance in these patients.”

“As important, if not more so, is whether children should be tolerized at all,” commented Dan Hart, PhD, from Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, who also presented data during the session.

“The U.K. currently takes the view that, in children, new inhibitors arising may be delayed into the latter part of the first decade of their life if they have not had factors as their first choice but have had [replacement] on demand. I think we are heading into challenging times of understanding how to deliver ITI to larger children, how acceptable that is, and how we do it, but enabling [factor] VIII to be used long term rather than tolerating a chronic inhibitor I think is a really important issue where we need to head toward some consensus,” he said.

No funding source was reported. Dr. Lillicrap disclosed research funding from and advisory roles for several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hart disclosed grant/research support and speakers bureau activity for various companies. Dr. Chambost has previously reported no disclosures relevant to the topic at hand.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

The KRAS inhibitor sotorasib provides durable clinical benefit in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring KRAS p.G12C mutations, results of a phase 2 trial suggest.

“This is a historic milestone in lung cancer therapy. After 4 decades of scientific efforts in targeting KRAS, sotorasib has potential to be the first targeted treatment option for this patient population with a high unmet need,” said Bob T. Li, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Li reported results with sotorasib in NSCLC, from the phase 2 part of the CodeBreaK 100 trial, at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract PS01.07), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

“It’s an absolutely remarkable study,” said Dean A. Fennell, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Leicester and University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust in the United Kingdom.

“The ‘un-druggability’ of KRAS has been something of a challenge for decades. To see results like this from Dr. Li is absolutely fabulous and will lead to a new stratification option.”
 

Rationale and study details

Dr. Li noted that the KRAS p.G12C mutation is a key oncogenic driver, occurring in about 13% of lung adenocarcinomas.

Sotorasib is a first-in-class, highly selective, irreversible KRASG12C inhibitor. It showed durable clinical benefit in 59 NSCLC patients enrolled in the phase 1 part of the CodeBreaK 100 trial (N Engl J Med 2020;383:1207-17). One-third of the patients had an objective response across all doses tested. The median duration of response was 10.9 months, and the median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.

The phase 2 part of CodeBreaK 100 included 126 patients from 11 countries in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Their median age was 63.5 years (range, 37-80 years), and 92.9% were current or former smokers.

Patients had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and a centrally confirmed KRAS p.G12C mutation. They had progressed after three or fewer prior lines of therapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib at 960 mg daily until disease progression. They were followed for a median of 12.2 months. An independent blinded central review found that 124 patients had at least one measurable lesion at baseline and were therefore evaluable for efficacy.

Phase 2 results

Sotorasib “demonstrated early, deep, and durable responses,” Dr. Li said.

In all, 46 patients had a confirmed response – 3 complete responses and 43 partial responses – for an objective response rate of 37.1%.

The median time to objective response was 1.4 months, the median duration of response was 10 months, and 43% of responders were still on treatment without progression at the data cutoff.

“Tumor response to sotorasib was observed across a range of biomarker subgroups, including patients with negative or low PD-L1 expression level and those with mutant STK11,” Dr. Li said.

The disease control rate was 80.6%, and tumors shrank by an average of about 60%. The median progression-free survival was 6.8 months.

Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were acceptable, with no surprises compared to phase 1 results, Dr. Li said.

TRAEs of any grade occurred in 69.8% of patients and led to discontinuation in 7.1%. TRAEs led to dose modification in 22.2% of patients.

Grade 3 TRAEs were reported in 19.8% of patients, including alanine aminotransferase increase (6.3%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (5.6%), diarrhea (4.0%), and blood alkaline phosphatase increase (0.8%).

“Sotorasib was well tolerated, with no deaths attributed to treatment and low incidence of grade 3 or 4 TRAEs, treatment discontinuation, and dose modification,” Dr. Li said.

A phase 3 trial of sotorasib compared with second-line docetaxel is now enrolling patients.

The phase 1/2 CodeBreaK 100 trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Li disclosed relationships with Amgen and many other companies. Dr. Fennell disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Merck, Roche, Astex Therapeutics, Bayer, Lab21, Atara Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inventiva.

The KRAS inhibitor sotorasib provides durable clinical benefit in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring KRAS p.G12C mutations, results of a phase 2 trial suggest.

“This is a historic milestone in lung cancer therapy. After 4 decades of scientific efforts in targeting KRAS, sotorasib has potential to be the first targeted treatment option for this patient population with a high unmet need,” said Bob T. Li, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Li reported results with sotorasib in NSCLC, from the phase 2 part of the CodeBreaK 100 trial, at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract PS01.07), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

“It’s an absolutely remarkable study,” said Dean A. Fennell, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Leicester and University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust in the United Kingdom.

“The ‘un-druggability’ of KRAS has been something of a challenge for decades. To see results like this from Dr. Li is absolutely fabulous and will lead to a new stratification option.”
 

Rationale and study details

Dr. Li noted that the KRAS p.G12C mutation is a key oncogenic driver, occurring in about 13% of lung adenocarcinomas.

Sotorasib is a first-in-class, highly selective, irreversible KRASG12C inhibitor. It showed durable clinical benefit in 59 NSCLC patients enrolled in the phase 1 part of the CodeBreaK 100 trial (N Engl J Med 2020;383:1207-17). One-third of the patients had an objective response across all doses tested. The median duration of response was 10.9 months, and the median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.

The phase 2 part of CodeBreaK 100 included 126 patients from 11 countries in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Their median age was 63.5 years (range, 37-80 years), and 92.9% were current or former smokers.

Patients had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and a centrally confirmed KRAS p.G12C mutation. They had progressed after three or fewer prior lines of therapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib at 960 mg daily until disease progression. They were followed for a median of 12.2 months. An independent blinded central review found that 124 patients had at least one measurable lesion at baseline and were therefore evaluable for efficacy.

Phase 2 results

Sotorasib “demonstrated early, deep, and durable responses,” Dr. Li said.

In all, 46 patients had a confirmed response – 3 complete responses and 43 partial responses – for an objective response rate of 37.1%.

The median time to objective response was 1.4 months, the median duration of response was 10 months, and 43% of responders were still on treatment without progression at the data cutoff.

“Tumor response to sotorasib was observed across a range of biomarker subgroups, including patients with negative or low PD-L1 expression level and those with mutant STK11,” Dr. Li said.

The disease control rate was 80.6%, and tumors shrank by an average of about 60%. The median progression-free survival was 6.8 months.

Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were acceptable, with no surprises compared to phase 1 results, Dr. Li said.

TRAEs of any grade occurred in 69.8% of patients and led to discontinuation in 7.1%. TRAEs led to dose modification in 22.2% of patients.

Grade 3 TRAEs were reported in 19.8% of patients, including alanine aminotransferase increase (6.3%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (5.6%), diarrhea (4.0%), and blood alkaline phosphatase increase (0.8%).

“Sotorasib was well tolerated, with no deaths attributed to treatment and low incidence of grade 3 or 4 TRAEs, treatment discontinuation, and dose modification,” Dr. Li said.

A phase 3 trial of sotorasib compared with second-line docetaxel is now enrolling patients.

The phase 1/2 CodeBreaK 100 trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Li disclosed relationships with Amgen and many other companies. Dr. Fennell disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Merck, Roche, Astex Therapeutics, Bayer, Lab21, Atara Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inventiva.

The KRAS inhibitor sotorasib provides durable clinical benefit in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring KRAS p.G12C mutations, results of a phase 2 trial suggest.

“This is a historic milestone in lung cancer therapy. After 4 decades of scientific efforts in targeting KRAS, sotorasib has potential to be the first targeted treatment option for this patient population with a high unmet need,” said Bob T. Li, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Li reported results with sotorasib in NSCLC, from the phase 2 part of the CodeBreaK 100 trial, at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract PS01.07), which was rescheduled for January 2021.

“It’s an absolutely remarkable study,” said Dean A. Fennell, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Leicester and University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust in the United Kingdom.

“The ‘un-druggability’ of KRAS has been something of a challenge for decades. To see results like this from Dr. Li is absolutely fabulous and will lead to a new stratification option.”
 

Rationale and study details

Dr. Li noted that the KRAS p.G12C mutation is a key oncogenic driver, occurring in about 13% of lung adenocarcinomas.

Sotorasib is a first-in-class, highly selective, irreversible KRASG12C inhibitor. It showed durable clinical benefit in 59 NSCLC patients enrolled in the phase 1 part of the CodeBreaK 100 trial (N Engl J Med 2020;383:1207-17). One-third of the patients had an objective response across all doses tested. The median duration of response was 10.9 months, and the median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.

The phase 2 part of CodeBreaK 100 included 126 patients from 11 countries in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Their median age was 63.5 years (range, 37-80 years), and 92.9% were current or former smokers.

Patients had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and a centrally confirmed KRAS p.G12C mutation. They had progressed after three or fewer prior lines of therapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib at 960 mg daily until disease progression. They were followed for a median of 12.2 months. An independent blinded central review found that 124 patients had at least one measurable lesion at baseline and were therefore evaluable for efficacy.

Phase 2 results

Sotorasib “demonstrated early, deep, and durable responses,” Dr. Li said.

In all, 46 patients had a confirmed response – 3 complete responses and 43 partial responses – for an objective response rate of 37.1%.

The median time to objective response was 1.4 months, the median duration of response was 10 months, and 43% of responders were still on treatment without progression at the data cutoff.

“Tumor response to sotorasib was observed across a range of biomarker subgroups, including patients with negative or low PD-L1 expression level and those with mutant STK11,” Dr. Li said.

The disease control rate was 80.6%, and tumors shrank by an average of about 60%. The median progression-free survival was 6.8 months.

Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were acceptable, with no surprises compared to phase 1 results, Dr. Li said.

TRAEs of any grade occurred in 69.8% of patients and led to discontinuation in 7.1%. TRAEs led to dose modification in 22.2% of patients.

Grade 3 TRAEs were reported in 19.8% of patients, including alanine aminotransferase increase (6.3%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (5.6%), diarrhea (4.0%), and blood alkaline phosphatase increase (0.8%).

“Sotorasib was well tolerated, with no deaths attributed to treatment and low incidence of grade 3 or 4 TRAEs, treatment discontinuation, and dose modification,” Dr. Li said.

A phase 3 trial of sotorasib compared with second-line docetaxel is now enrolling patients.

The phase 1/2 CodeBreaK 100 trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Li disclosed relationships with Amgen and many other companies. Dr. Fennell disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Merck, Roche, Astex Therapeutics, Bayer, Lab21, Atara Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inventiva.