Conference Coverage

Preliminary data suggest that a certain pattern of gut microbes may be useful in predicting which patients with advanced gastric cancer are likely to benefit from treatment with the immunotherapy nivolumab.

Researchers have demonstrated bacterial invasion of the epithelial cell pathway in the gut microbiome and suggest that this could potentially become a novel biomarker.

“In addition, we found gastric cancer–specific gut microbiome predictive of responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said study author Yu Sunakawa, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of clinical oncology at St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.

Dr. Sunakawa presented the study’s results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The gut microbiome holds great interest as a potential biomarker for response. Previous studies suggested that it may hold the key to immunotherapy responses. The concept has been demonstrated in several studies involving patients with melanoma, but this is the first study in patients with gastric cancer.

Nivolumab monotherapy has been shown to provide a survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, Dr. Sunakawa noted. However, fewer than half of patients responded to therapy.

“The disease control rate was about 40%, and many patients did not experience any tumor degradation,” he said. “About 60% of the patients did not respond to nivolumab as a late-line therapy.”

In the observational/translational DELIVER trial, investigators enrolled 501 patients with recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GEJ. The patients were recruited from 50 sites in Japan.

The primary endpoint was the relationship between the genomic pathway in the gut microbiome and efficacy of nivolumab and whether there was progressive disease or not at the first evaluation, as determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria.

Genomic data were measured by genome shotgun sequence at a central laboratory. Biomarkers were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test in the first 200 patients, who constituted the training cohort. The top 30 biomarker candidates were validated in the last 300 patients (the validation cohort) using the Bonferroni method.

Clinical and genomic data were available for 437 patients (87%). Of this group, 180 constituted the training cohort, and 257, the validation cohort.

The phylogenetic composition of common bacterial taxa was similar for both cohorts.

In the training cohort, 62.2% of patients had progressive disease, as did 53.2% in the validation cohort. The microbiome was more diverse among the patients who did not have progressive disease than among those who did have progressive disease.

The authors noted that, although there was no statistically significant pathway to be validated for a primary endpoint using the Bonferroni method, bacterial invasion of epithelial cells in the KEGG pathway was associated with clinical outcomes in both the training cohort (P = .057) and the validation cohort (P = .014). However, these pathways were not significantly associated with progressive disease after Bonferroni correction, a conservative test that adjusts for multiple comparisons.

An exploratory analysis of genus showed that Odoribacter and Veillonella species were associated with tumor response to nivolumab in both cohorts.

Dr. Sunakawa noted that biomarker analyses are ongoing. The researchers are investigating the relationships between microbiome and survival times, as well as other endpoints.
 

Still some gaps

In a discussion of the study, Jonathan Yeung, MD, PhD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, congratulated the investigators on their study, noting that “the logistical hurdles must have been tremendous to obtain these data.”

However, Dr. Yeung pointed out some limitations and gaps in the data that were presented. For example, he found that the ratio of the training set to the validation set was unusual. “The training set is usually larger and usually an 80/20 ratio,” he said. “In their design, the validation set is larger, and I’m quite curious about their rationale.

“The conclusion of the study is that a more diverse microbiome was observed in patients with a tumor response than in those without a response,” he continued, “but they don’t actually show the statistical test used to make this conclusion. There is considerable overlap between the groups, and more compelling data are needed to make that conclusion.”

Another limitation was the marked imbalance in the number of patients whose condition responded to nivolumab in comparison with those whose condition did not (20 vs. 417 patients). This could have affected the statistical power of the study.

But overall, Dr. Yeung congratulated the authors for presenting a very impressive dataset. “The preliminary data are very interesting, and I look forward to the final results,” he said.

The study was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets nivolumab. Dr. Sunakawa has received honoraria from Bayer Yakuhin, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Kayaku, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. He has held a consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Takeda and has received research funding from Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Preliminary data suggest that a certain pattern of gut microbes may be useful in predicting which patients with advanced gastric cancer are likely to benefit from treatment with the immunotherapy nivolumab.

Researchers have demonstrated bacterial invasion of the epithelial cell pathway in the gut microbiome and suggest that this could potentially become a novel biomarker.

“In addition, we found gastric cancer–specific gut microbiome predictive of responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said study author Yu Sunakawa, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of clinical oncology at St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.

Dr. Sunakawa presented the study’s results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The gut microbiome holds great interest as a potential biomarker for response. Previous studies suggested that it may hold the key to immunotherapy responses. The concept has been demonstrated in several studies involving patients with melanoma, but this is the first study in patients with gastric cancer.

Nivolumab monotherapy has been shown to provide a survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, Dr. Sunakawa noted. However, fewer than half of patients responded to therapy.

“The disease control rate was about 40%, and many patients did not experience any tumor degradation,” he said. “About 60% of the patients did not respond to nivolumab as a late-line therapy.”

In the observational/translational DELIVER trial, investigators enrolled 501 patients with recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GEJ. The patients were recruited from 50 sites in Japan.

The primary endpoint was the relationship between the genomic pathway in the gut microbiome and efficacy of nivolumab and whether there was progressive disease or not at the first evaluation, as determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria.

Genomic data were measured by genome shotgun sequence at a central laboratory. Biomarkers were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test in the first 200 patients, who constituted the training cohort. The top 30 biomarker candidates were validated in the last 300 patients (the validation cohort) using the Bonferroni method.

Clinical and genomic data were available for 437 patients (87%). Of this group, 180 constituted the training cohort, and 257, the validation cohort.

The phylogenetic composition of common bacterial taxa was similar for both cohorts.

In the training cohort, 62.2% of patients had progressive disease, as did 53.2% in the validation cohort. The microbiome was more diverse among the patients who did not have progressive disease than among those who did have progressive disease.

The authors noted that, although there was no statistically significant pathway to be validated for a primary endpoint using the Bonferroni method, bacterial invasion of epithelial cells in the KEGG pathway was associated with clinical outcomes in both the training cohort (P = .057) and the validation cohort (P = .014). However, these pathways were not significantly associated with progressive disease after Bonferroni correction, a conservative test that adjusts for multiple comparisons.

An exploratory analysis of genus showed that Odoribacter and Veillonella species were associated with tumor response to nivolumab in both cohorts.

Dr. Sunakawa noted that biomarker analyses are ongoing. The researchers are investigating the relationships between microbiome and survival times, as well as other endpoints.
 

Still some gaps

In a discussion of the study, Jonathan Yeung, MD, PhD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, congratulated the investigators on their study, noting that “the logistical hurdles must have been tremendous to obtain these data.”

However, Dr. Yeung pointed out some limitations and gaps in the data that were presented. For example, he found that the ratio of the training set to the validation set was unusual. “The training set is usually larger and usually an 80/20 ratio,” he said. “In their design, the validation set is larger, and I’m quite curious about their rationale.

“The conclusion of the study is that a more diverse microbiome was observed in patients with a tumor response than in those without a response,” he continued, “but they don’t actually show the statistical test used to make this conclusion. There is considerable overlap between the groups, and more compelling data are needed to make that conclusion.”

Another limitation was the marked imbalance in the number of patients whose condition responded to nivolumab in comparison with those whose condition did not (20 vs. 417 patients). This could have affected the statistical power of the study.

But overall, Dr. Yeung congratulated the authors for presenting a very impressive dataset. “The preliminary data are very interesting, and I look forward to the final results,” he said.

The study was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets nivolumab. Dr. Sunakawa has received honoraria from Bayer Yakuhin, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Kayaku, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. He has held a consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Takeda and has received research funding from Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Preliminary data suggest that a certain pattern of gut microbes may be useful in predicting which patients with advanced gastric cancer are likely to benefit from treatment with the immunotherapy nivolumab.

Researchers have demonstrated bacterial invasion of the epithelial cell pathway in the gut microbiome and suggest that this could potentially become a novel biomarker.

“In addition, we found gastric cancer–specific gut microbiome predictive of responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said study author Yu Sunakawa, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of clinical oncology at St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.

Dr. Sunakawa presented the study’s results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The gut microbiome holds great interest as a potential biomarker for response. Previous studies suggested that it may hold the key to immunotherapy responses. The concept has been demonstrated in several studies involving patients with melanoma, but this is the first study in patients with gastric cancer.

Nivolumab monotherapy has been shown to provide a survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, Dr. Sunakawa noted. However, fewer than half of patients responded to therapy.

“The disease control rate was about 40%, and many patients did not experience any tumor degradation,” he said. “About 60% of the patients did not respond to nivolumab as a late-line therapy.”

In the observational/translational DELIVER trial, investigators enrolled 501 patients with recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GEJ. The patients were recruited from 50 sites in Japan.

The primary endpoint was the relationship between the genomic pathway in the gut microbiome and efficacy of nivolumab and whether there was progressive disease or not at the first evaluation, as determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria.

Genomic data were measured by genome shotgun sequence at a central laboratory. Biomarkers were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test in the first 200 patients, who constituted the training cohort. The top 30 biomarker candidates were validated in the last 300 patients (the validation cohort) using the Bonferroni method.

Clinical and genomic data were available for 437 patients (87%). Of this group, 180 constituted the training cohort, and 257, the validation cohort.

The phylogenetic composition of common bacterial taxa was similar for both cohorts.

In the training cohort, 62.2% of patients had progressive disease, as did 53.2% in the validation cohort. The microbiome was more diverse among the patients who did not have progressive disease than among those who did have progressive disease.

The authors noted that, although there was no statistically significant pathway to be validated for a primary endpoint using the Bonferroni method, bacterial invasion of epithelial cells in the KEGG pathway was associated with clinical outcomes in both the training cohort (P = .057) and the validation cohort (P = .014). However, these pathways were not significantly associated with progressive disease after Bonferroni correction, a conservative test that adjusts for multiple comparisons.

An exploratory analysis of genus showed that Odoribacter and Veillonella species were associated with tumor response to nivolumab in both cohorts.

Dr. Sunakawa noted that biomarker analyses are ongoing. The researchers are investigating the relationships between microbiome and survival times, as well as other endpoints.
 

Still some gaps

In a discussion of the study, Jonathan Yeung, MD, PhD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, congratulated the investigators on their study, noting that “the logistical hurdles must have been tremendous to obtain these data.”

However, Dr. Yeung pointed out some limitations and gaps in the data that were presented. For example, he found that the ratio of the training set to the validation set was unusual. “The training set is usually larger and usually an 80/20 ratio,” he said. “In their design, the validation set is larger, and I’m quite curious about their rationale.

“The conclusion of the study is that a more diverse microbiome was observed in patients with a tumor response than in those without a response,” he continued, “but they don’t actually show the statistical test used to make this conclusion. There is considerable overlap between the groups, and more compelling data are needed to make that conclusion.”

Another limitation was the marked imbalance in the number of patients whose condition responded to nivolumab in comparison with those whose condition did not (20 vs. 417 patients). This could have affected the statistical power of the study.

But overall, Dr. Yeung congratulated the authors for presenting a very impressive dataset. “The preliminary data are very interesting, and I look forward to the final results,” he said.

The study was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets nivolumab. Dr. Sunakawa has received honoraria from Bayer Yakuhin, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Kayaku, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. He has held a consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Takeda and has received research funding from Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Adding bemarituzumab to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers improved survival over chemotherapy alone in the phase 2 FIGHT trial.

Among 155 patients followed for a median of 10.9 months, the combination of bemarituzumab and modified FOLFOX chemotherapy (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) resulted in a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.5 months, compared with 7.4 months with chemotherapy alone.

The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the combination arm but was 12.9 months for patients treated with modified FOLFOX plus placebo

Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, presented these results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Dr. Wainberg explained that bemarituzumab is an IgG1 antibody targeted specifically to the FGFR2b receptor to block growth factor signaling. The findings from FIGHT suggest FGFR2b is a new biomarker and therapeutic target for advanced gastric and GEJ cancers.

“The FIGHT trial results support a prospective, randomized, phase 3 study in gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and the evaluation of bemarituzumab in other FGFR2b tumor types,” Dr. Wainberg said.

FGFR2b is a splice isoform of FGFR2 that is thought to be overexpressed in anywhere from 3% to 61% of gastric cancers, depending on the tumor stage and assay used, he explained at the meeting sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
 

Study downgrading and design

The FIGHT trial was originally designed as a phase 3, randomized trial with the primary endpoint of OS, but it was converted to a phase 2 trial with a PFS primary endpoint and OS secondary endpoint.

In the question-and-answer phase following his presentation, Dr. Wainberg explained that the trial was downgraded because “we wanted to get a little more comfortable with the biomarker,” and because the prevalence of FGFR2b, which was unknown during the planning phase, played a large role in the statistical assumptions.

Patients were eligible for FIGHT if they had received no prior therapy for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic gastric or GEJ cancers. They also had to have FGFR2b overexpression on immunohistochemistry and/or FGFR2 gene amplification by circulating tumor DNA. They had to have good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 or 1) and could not have tumors positive for HER2.

Patients were allowed to have one cycle of FOLFOX while their FGFR2b status was being determined, prior to randomization.

After stratification for geographic region, FOLFOX use during screenings, and prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the patients were randomized to receive FOLFOX with either placebo or 15 mg/kg of bemarituzumab every 2 weeks, plus an additional 7.5-mg/kg dose on day 8 of cycle 1.

A total of 77 patients were randomized to the bemarituzumab arm, and 78 were randomized to the placebo arm.
 

Patient status at cutoff

As of the September 2020 cutoff, 14 patients continued on bemarituzumab, and 63 were off the assigned drug: 26 because of radiographic progression, 3 for consent withdrawal, 5 because of death, 20 because of adverse events, and 9 for other unspecified causes.

There were 42 patients in the bemarituzumab arm who were still being followed at the cutoff, and 35 were off study. Of this latter group, 28 died, 6 withdrew consent, and 1 was off study for an unspecified cause.

In the placebo arm, 8 patients were still receiving the assigned therapy, and 70 were off that treatment. Of the patients who discontinued study treatment, 4 died, 39 had radiographic progression, 7 withdrew consent, 3 had adverse events, and 17 discontinued for other unspecified reasons.

A total of 27 patients assigned to placebo were still on follow-up at the data cutoff. Of the remaining 51 patients, 40 died, 10 withdrew consent, and 1 had other, unspecified causes for going off study.
 

Primary endpoint met

The PFS rate at 9 months was 52.5% in the experimental arm and 33.8% in the control arm. The median PFS was 9.5 months with bemarituzumab and 7.4 months with placebo, which translated to a hazard ratio of 0.68 (P = .0727). This met the prespecified level of statistical significance for the phase 2 version of the trial, which required a two-sided alpha of 0.2

­OS at 12 months was also superior in the experimental arm, at 65.3% with bemarituzumab and 56.9% with placebo (HR, 0.58; P = .0268).

The benefit of bemarituzumab for both PFS and OS was greatest among patients whose tumors had the highest levels of FGFR2b expression.

Overall response rates were 47% in the experimental arm and 33% in the placebo arm. Among patients with measurable disease at baseline, the respective response rates were 53% and 40%. The median duration of response was 12.2 months in the bemarituzumab arm and 7.1 months in the placebo arm.
 

Corneal toxicities, stomatitis

The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was 82.9% in the experimental arm and 74% in the placebo arm. Five patients in the bemarituzumab arm and four in the placebo arm died from treatment-related causes.

Grade 3 or greater stomatitis occurred in seven patients in the experimental arm, compared with just one patient in the placebo arm. Grade 3 or greater dry eye occurred in two patients in the experimental arm but none in the placebo arm.

Corneal adverse events occurred in 67.1% of patients treated with bemarituzumab and 10.4% of patients on placebo. Respective rates of grade 3 or greater corneal events were 23.7% and 0%.

Twenty patients assigned to bemarituzumab had to discontinue the drug because of corneal problems, compared with no patients on placebo.

At last follow-up, corneal adverse events had resolved in 60% of patients, while 40% had continuing problems. The median time to resolution of corneal adverse events was 27 weeks.
 

New biomarker

“FIGHT study is the first study to demonstrate that biomarker selection exists beyond HER2,” commented invited discussant Rutika Mehta, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center and University of South Florida, both in Tampa.

“These are promising results, with toxicities that need to be watched out for. It calls for a larger phase 3 study with special attention to the toxicity profile for bema[rituzumab],” she added.

The trial was supported by Five Prime Therapeutics. Dr. Wainberg disclosed relationships with Five Prime and other companies. Dr. Mehta disclosed relationships with several companies, not including Five Prime.

Adding bemarituzumab to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers improved survival over chemotherapy alone in the phase 2 FIGHT trial.

Among 155 patients followed for a median of 10.9 months, the combination of bemarituzumab and modified FOLFOX chemotherapy (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) resulted in a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.5 months, compared with 7.4 months with chemotherapy alone.

The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the combination arm but was 12.9 months for patients treated with modified FOLFOX plus placebo

Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, presented these results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Dr. Wainberg explained that bemarituzumab is an IgG1 antibody targeted specifically to the FGFR2b receptor to block growth factor signaling. The findings from FIGHT suggest FGFR2b is a new biomarker and therapeutic target for advanced gastric and GEJ cancers.

“The FIGHT trial results support a prospective, randomized, phase 3 study in gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and the evaluation of bemarituzumab in other FGFR2b tumor types,” Dr. Wainberg said.

FGFR2b is a splice isoform of FGFR2 that is thought to be overexpressed in anywhere from 3% to 61% of gastric cancers, depending on the tumor stage and assay used, he explained at the meeting sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
 

Study downgrading and design

The FIGHT trial was originally designed as a phase 3, randomized trial with the primary endpoint of OS, but it was converted to a phase 2 trial with a PFS primary endpoint and OS secondary endpoint.

In the question-and-answer phase following his presentation, Dr. Wainberg explained that the trial was downgraded because “we wanted to get a little more comfortable with the biomarker,” and because the prevalence of FGFR2b, which was unknown during the planning phase, played a large role in the statistical assumptions.

Patients were eligible for FIGHT if they had received no prior therapy for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic gastric or GEJ cancers. They also had to have FGFR2b overexpression on immunohistochemistry and/or FGFR2 gene amplification by circulating tumor DNA. They had to have good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 or 1) and could not have tumors positive for HER2.

Patients were allowed to have one cycle of FOLFOX while their FGFR2b status was being determined, prior to randomization.

After stratification for geographic region, FOLFOX use during screenings, and prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the patients were randomized to receive FOLFOX with either placebo or 15 mg/kg of bemarituzumab every 2 weeks, plus an additional 7.5-mg/kg dose on day 8 of cycle 1.

A total of 77 patients were randomized to the bemarituzumab arm, and 78 were randomized to the placebo arm.
 

Patient status at cutoff

As of the September 2020 cutoff, 14 patients continued on bemarituzumab, and 63 were off the assigned drug: 26 because of radiographic progression, 3 for consent withdrawal, 5 because of death, 20 because of adverse events, and 9 for other unspecified causes.

There were 42 patients in the bemarituzumab arm who were still being followed at the cutoff, and 35 were off study. Of this latter group, 28 died, 6 withdrew consent, and 1 was off study for an unspecified cause.

In the placebo arm, 8 patients were still receiving the assigned therapy, and 70 were off that treatment. Of the patients who discontinued study treatment, 4 died, 39 had radiographic progression, 7 withdrew consent, 3 had adverse events, and 17 discontinued for other unspecified reasons.

A total of 27 patients assigned to placebo were still on follow-up at the data cutoff. Of the remaining 51 patients, 40 died, 10 withdrew consent, and 1 had other, unspecified causes for going off study.
 

Primary endpoint met

The PFS rate at 9 months was 52.5% in the experimental arm and 33.8% in the control arm. The median PFS was 9.5 months with bemarituzumab and 7.4 months with placebo, which translated to a hazard ratio of 0.68 (P = .0727). This met the prespecified level of statistical significance for the phase 2 version of the trial, which required a two-sided alpha of 0.2

­OS at 12 months was also superior in the experimental arm, at 65.3% with bemarituzumab and 56.9% with placebo (HR, 0.58; P = .0268).

The benefit of bemarituzumab for both PFS and OS was greatest among patients whose tumors had the highest levels of FGFR2b expression.

Overall response rates were 47% in the experimental arm and 33% in the placebo arm. Among patients with measurable disease at baseline, the respective response rates were 53% and 40%. The median duration of response was 12.2 months in the bemarituzumab arm and 7.1 months in the placebo arm.
 

Corneal toxicities, stomatitis

The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was 82.9% in the experimental arm and 74% in the placebo arm. Five patients in the bemarituzumab arm and four in the placebo arm died from treatment-related causes.

Grade 3 or greater stomatitis occurred in seven patients in the experimental arm, compared with just one patient in the placebo arm. Grade 3 or greater dry eye occurred in two patients in the experimental arm but none in the placebo arm.

Corneal adverse events occurred in 67.1% of patients treated with bemarituzumab and 10.4% of patients on placebo. Respective rates of grade 3 or greater corneal events were 23.7% and 0%.

Twenty patients assigned to bemarituzumab had to discontinue the drug because of corneal problems, compared with no patients on placebo.

At last follow-up, corneal adverse events had resolved in 60% of patients, while 40% had continuing problems. The median time to resolution of corneal adverse events was 27 weeks.
 

New biomarker

“FIGHT study is the first study to demonstrate that biomarker selection exists beyond HER2,” commented invited discussant Rutika Mehta, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center and University of South Florida, both in Tampa.

“These are promising results, with toxicities that need to be watched out for. It calls for a larger phase 3 study with special attention to the toxicity profile for bema[rituzumab],” she added.

The trial was supported by Five Prime Therapeutics. Dr. Wainberg disclosed relationships with Five Prime and other companies. Dr. Mehta disclosed relationships with several companies, not including Five Prime.

Adding bemarituzumab to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers improved survival over chemotherapy alone in the phase 2 FIGHT trial.

Among 155 patients followed for a median of 10.9 months, the combination of bemarituzumab and modified FOLFOX chemotherapy (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) resulted in a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.5 months, compared with 7.4 months with chemotherapy alone.

The median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the combination arm but was 12.9 months for patients treated with modified FOLFOX plus placebo

Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, presented these results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Dr. Wainberg explained that bemarituzumab is an IgG1 antibody targeted specifically to the FGFR2b receptor to block growth factor signaling. The findings from FIGHT suggest FGFR2b is a new biomarker and therapeutic target for advanced gastric and GEJ cancers.

“The FIGHT trial results support a prospective, randomized, phase 3 study in gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and the evaluation of bemarituzumab in other FGFR2b tumor types,” Dr. Wainberg said.

FGFR2b is a splice isoform of FGFR2 that is thought to be overexpressed in anywhere from 3% to 61% of gastric cancers, depending on the tumor stage and assay used, he explained at the meeting sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
 

Study downgrading and design

The FIGHT trial was originally designed as a phase 3, randomized trial with the primary endpoint of OS, but it was converted to a phase 2 trial with a PFS primary endpoint and OS secondary endpoint.

In the question-and-answer phase following his presentation, Dr. Wainberg explained that the trial was downgraded because “we wanted to get a little more comfortable with the biomarker,” and because the prevalence of FGFR2b, which was unknown during the planning phase, played a large role in the statistical assumptions.

Patients were eligible for FIGHT if they had received no prior therapy for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic gastric or GEJ cancers. They also had to have FGFR2b overexpression on immunohistochemistry and/or FGFR2 gene amplification by circulating tumor DNA. They had to have good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 or 1) and could not have tumors positive for HER2.

Patients were allowed to have one cycle of FOLFOX while their FGFR2b status was being determined, prior to randomization.

After stratification for geographic region, FOLFOX use during screenings, and prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the patients were randomized to receive FOLFOX with either placebo or 15 mg/kg of bemarituzumab every 2 weeks, plus an additional 7.5-mg/kg dose on day 8 of cycle 1.

A total of 77 patients were randomized to the bemarituzumab arm, and 78 were randomized to the placebo arm.
 

Patient status at cutoff

As of the September 2020 cutoff, 14 patients continued on bemarituzumab, and 63 were off the assigned drug: 26 because of radiographic progression, 3 for consent withdrawal, 5 because of death, 20 because of adverse events, and 9 for other unspecified causes.

There were 42 patients in the bemarituzumab arm who were still being followed at the cutoff, and 35 were off study. Of this latter group, 28 died, 6 withdrew consent, and 1 was off study for an unspecified cause.

In the placebo arm, 8 patients were still receiving the assigned therapy, and 70 were off that treatment. Of the patients who discontinued study treatment, 4 died, 39 had radiographic progression, 7 withdrew consent, 3 had adverse events, and 17 discontinued for other unspecified reasons.

A total of 27 patients assigned to placebo were still on follow-up at the data cutoff. Of the remaining 51 patients, 40 died, 10 withdrew consent, and 1 had other, unspecified causes for going off study.
 

Primary endpoint met

The PFS rate at 9 months was 52.5% in the experimental arm and 33.8% in the control arm. The median PFS was 9.5 months with bemarituzumab and 7.4 months with placebo, which translated to a hazard ratio of 0.68 (P = .0727). This met the prespecified level of statistical significance for the phase 2 version of the trial, which required a two-sided alpha of 0.2

­OS at 12 months was also superior in the experimental arm, at 65.3% with bemarituzumab and 56.9% with placebo (HR, 0.58; P = .0268).

The benefit of bemarituzumab for both PFS and OS was greatest among patients whose tumors had the highest levels of FGFR2b expression.

Overall response rates were 47% in the experimental arm and 33% in the placebo arm. Among patients with measurable disease at baseline, the respective response rates were 53% and 40%. The median duration of response was 12.2 months in the bemarituzumab arm and 7.1 months in the placebo arm.
 

Corneal toxicities, stomatitis

The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was 82.9% in the experimental arm and 74% in the placebo arm. Five patients in the bemarituzumab arm and four in the placebo arm died from treatment-related causes.

Grade 3 or greater stomatitis occurred in seven patients in the experimental arm, compared with just one patient in the placebo arm. Grade 3 or greater dry eye occurred in two patients in the experimental arm but none in the placebo arm.

Corneal adverse events occurred in 67.1% of patients treated with bemarituzumab and 10.4% of patients on placebo. Respective rates of grade 3 or greater corneal events were 23.7% and 0%.

Twenty patients assigned to bemarituzumab had to discontinue the drug because of corneal problems, compared with no patients on placebo.

At last follow-up, corneal adverse events had resolved in 60% of patients, while 40% had continuing problems. The median time to resolution of corneal adverse events was 27 weeks.
 

New biomarker

“FIGHT study is the first study to demonstrate that biomarker selection exists beyond HER2,” commented invited discussant Rutika Mehta, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center and University of South Florida, both in Tampa.

“These are promising results, with toxicities that need to be watched out for. It calls for a larger phase 3 study with special attention to the toxicity profile for bema[rituzumab],” she added.

The trial was supported by Five Prime Therapeutics. Dr. Wainberg disclosed relationships with Five Prime and other companies. Dr. Mehta disclosed relationships with several companies, not including Five Prime.

Results of the IMMUNED study of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with stage IV melanoma and no evidence of disease after resection are causing a stir among experts in advanced melanoma.

IMMUNED was a multicenter German double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted by the Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group. It included 167 patients with resected stage IV melanoma and no evidence of disease who were randomized to adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), or double placebo, with relapse-free survival as the primary outcome, Merrick I. Ross, MD, explained at a forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

“The patients who received adjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab had amazing 24-month outcomes: a relapse-free survival of 70% versus 42% with nivolumab and 14% with placebo,” observed Dr. Ross, professor of surgical oncology and chief of the melanoma section at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“It’s not a long-term survival outcome, but we’ll see what happens long term. This could be a very interesting approach to move forward with,” he commented.

By way of background, the cancer surgeon noted that nivolumab has achieved standard-of-care status as adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma, largely on the strength of the CheckMate-238 trial, which randomized 906 such patients at 130 academic centers in 25 countries to 1 year of adjuvant therapy with either intravenous nivolumab or ipilimumab. In the study, nivolumab emerged as the clear winner, with a 4-year recurrence-free survival of 51.7%, compared with 41.2% for ipilimumab, for a 29% relative risk reduction. Ipilimumab was associated with greater toxicity.

The between-group difference in relapse-free survival in the overall study population also held true in the subgroup comprised of 169 CheckMate 238 participants with resected stage IV melanoma and no evidence of disease at enrollment, Dr. Ross noted.

In the IMMUNED trial, the superior outcome achieved with adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab came at the cost of significantly greater toxicity than with nivolumab alone. Treatment-related adverse events led to medication discontinuation in 62% of the dual-adjuvant therapy group, compared with 13% of those on adjuvant nivolumab.

IMMUNED was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Dr. Ross reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Results of the IMMUNED study of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with stage IV melanoma and no evidence of disease after resection are causing a stir among experts in advanced melanoma.

IMMUNED was a multicenter German double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted by the Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group. It included 167 patients with resected stage IV melanoma and no evidence of disease who were randomized to adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), or double placebo, with relapse-free survival as the primary outcome, Merrick I. Ross, MD, explained at a forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

“The patients who received adjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab had amazing 24-month outcomes: a relapse-free survival of 70% versus 42% with nivolumab and 14% with placebo,” observed Dr. Ross, professor of surgical oncology and chief of the melanoma section at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“It’s not a long-term survival outcome, but we’ll see what happens long term. This could be a very interesting approach to move forward with,” he commented.

By way of background, the cancer surgeon noted that nivolumab has achieved standard-of-care status as adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma, largely on the strength of the CheckMate-238 trial, which randomized 906 such patients at 130 academic centers in 25 countries to 1 year of adjuvant therapy with either intravenous nivolumab or ipilimumab. In the study, nivolumab emerged as the clear winner, with a 4-year recurrence-free survival of 51.7%, compared with 41.2% for ipilimumab, for a 29% relative risk reduction. Ipilimumab was associated with greater toxicity.

The between-group difference in relapse-free survival in the overall study population also held true in the subgroup comprised of 169 CheckMate 238 participants with resected stage IV melanoma and no evidence of disease at enrollment, Dr. Ross noted.

In the IMMUNED trial, the superior outcome achieved with adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab came at the cost of significantly greater toxicity than with nivolumab alone. Treatment-related adverse events led to medication discontinuation in 62% of the dual-adjuvant therapy group, compared with 13% of those on adjuvant nivolumab.

IMMUNED was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Dr. Ross reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Results of the IMMUNED study of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with stage IV melanoma and no evidence of disease after resection are causing a stir among experts in advanced melanoma.

IMMUNED was a multicenter German double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted by the Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group. It included 167 patients with resected stage IV melanoma and no evidence of disease who were randomized to adjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus placebo, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Yervoy), or double placebo, with relapse-free survival as the primary outcome, Merrick I. Ross, MD, explained at a forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

“The patients who received adjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab had amazing 24-month outcomes: a relapse-free survival of 70% versus 42% with nivolumab and 14% with placebo,” observed Dr. Ross, professor of surgical oncology and chief of the melanoma section at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“It’s not a long-term survival outcome, but we’ll see what happens long term. This could be a very interesting approach to move forward with,” he commented.

By way of background, the cancer surgeon noted that nivolumab has achieved standard-of-care status as adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma, largely on the strength of the CheckMate-238 trial, which randomized 906 such patients at 130 academic centers in 25 countries to 1 year of adjuvant therapy with either intravenous nivolumab or ipilimumab. In the study, nivolumab emerged as the clear winner, with a 4-year recurrence-free survival of 51.7%, compared with 41.2% for ipilimumab, for a 29% relative risk reduction. Ipilimumab was associated with greater toxicity.

The between-group difference in relapse-free survival in the overall study population also held true in the subgroup comprised of 169 CheckMate 238 participants with resected stage IV melanoma and no evidence of disease at enrollment, Dr. Ross noted.

In the IMMUNED trial, the superior outcome achieved with adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab came at the cost of significantly greater toxicity than with nivolumab alone. Treatment-related adverse events led to medication discontinuation in 62% of the dual-adjuvant therapy group, compared with 13% of those on adjuvant nivolumab.

IMMUNED was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Dr. Ross reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

“Kidney disease is the most common chronic disease in the United States and the world, and the incidence is on the rise,” said Kim Zuber, PA-C, executive director of the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and outreach chair for the National Kidney Foundation in St. Petersburg, Fla.

Kidney disease also is an expensive problem that accounts for approximately 20% of the Medicare budget in the United States, she said in a virtual presentation at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“It’s important that we know how to identify it and how to slow the progression if possible, and what to do when we can no longer control the disease,” she said.

Notably, the rate of growth for kidney disease is highest among adults aged 20-45 years, said Ms. Zuber. “That is the group who will live for many years with kidney disease,” but should be in their peak years of working and earning. “That is the group we do not want to develop chronic diseases.”

“Look for kidney disease. It’s not always on the chart; it is often missed because people don’t think of it,” Ms. Zuber said. Anyone over 60 years has likely lost some kidney function. Other risk factors include minority/ethnicity, hypertension or cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and a family history of kidney disease.

Women are more likely to develop chronic kidney disease (CKD), but less likely to go on dialysis, said Ms. Zuber. “What I find fascinating is that a history of oophorectomy” increases risk. Other less obvious risk factors in a medical history that should prompt a kidney disease screening include mothers who drank during pregnancy, individuals with a history of acute kidney disease, lupus, sarcoid, amyloid, gout, or other autoimmune conditions, as well as a history of kidney stones of cancer. Kidney donors or transplant recipients are at increased risk, as are smokers, soda drinkers, and heavy salt users.

CKD is missed by many health care providers, Ms. Zuber said. For example, she cited data from more than 270,000 veterans treated at a Veterans Affairs hospital in Texas, which suggested that the likelihood of adding CKD to a patient’s diagnosis was 43.7% even if lab results confirmed CKD.
 

Find the patients

There are many formulas for defining kidney function, Ms. Zuber said. The estimation of creatinine clearance (eCrCl) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) are among them. The most common definition is to calculate eGFR using the CKD-EPI formula. Cystatin C is more exact, but it is not standardized, so a lab in one state does not use the same formula as one in another state.

Overall, all these formulas are plus or minus 30%. “It is an estimate,” she said. Within the stages of CKD, “what we know is that, if you have a high GFR, that’s good, but patients who are losing albumin are at increased risk for CKD.” The albumin is more of a risk factor for CKD than GFR, so the GFR test used doesn’t make much difference, whereas, “if you have a lot of albumin in your urine, you are going downhill,” she said.

Normally, everyone loses kidney function with age, Ms. Zuber said. Starting at age 30, individuals lose about 1 mL/min per year in measures of GFR, however, this progression is more rapid among those with CKD, so “we need to find those people who are progressing more quickly than normal.”

The way to identify the high-risk patients is albumin, Ms. Zuber said. Health care providers need to test the urine and check albumin for high levels of albumin loss through urine, and many providers simply don’t routinely conduct urine tests for patients with other CKD risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension.

Albuminuria levels of 2,000 mg/g are the most concerning, and a urine-albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) test is the most effective tool to monitor kidney function, Ms. Zuber said.

She recommends ordering a UACR test at least once a year to monitor kidney loss in all patients with hypertension, diabetes, lupus, and other risk factors including race and a history of acute kidney injury.
 

Keep them healthy

Managing patients with chronic kidney disease includes attention to several categories: hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, and mental health, Ms. Zuber said.

“If hypertension doesn’t cause your CKD, your CKD will cause hypertension,” she said. The goal for patients with CKD is a target systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg. “As kidney disease progresses, hypertension becomes harder to control,” she added. Lifestyle changes including exercise, low-fat diet, limited use of salt, weight loss if needed, and stress reduction strategies can help.

For patients with diabetes and CKD, work towards a target hemoglobin A1c of 7.0 for early CKD, and of 8% for stage 4/5 or for older patients with multiple comorbidities, Ms. Zuber said. All types of insulin are safe for CKD patients. “Kidney function declines at twice the normal rate for diabetes patients; however, SGLT2 inhibitors are very renoprotective. You may not see a drop in A1c, but you are protecting the kidney.”

For patients with obesity and CKD, data show that bariatric surgery (gastric bypass) lowers mortality in diabetes and also protects the heart and kidneys, said Ms. Zuber. Overall, central obesity increases CKD risk independent of any other risk factors, but losing weight, either by surgery or diet/lifestyle, helps save the kidneys.

Cardiovascular disease is the cause of death for more than 70% of kidney disease patients, Ms. Zuber said. CKD patients “are two to three times more likely to have atrial fibrillation, so take the time to listen with that stethoscope,” she added, also emphasizing the importance of statins for all CKD and diabetes patients, and decreasing smoking. In addition, “managing metabolic acidosis slows the loss of kidney function and protects the heart.”

Additional pearls for managing chronic kidney disease include paying attention to a patient’s mental health; depression occurs in roughly 25%-47% of CKD patients, and anxiety in approximately 27%, said Ms. Zuber. Depression “is believed to be the most common psychiatric disorder in patients with end stage renal disease,” and data suggest that managing depression can help improve survival in CKD patients.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Zuber had no financial conflicts to disclose.

“Kidney disease is the most common chronic disease in the United States and the world, and the incidence is on the rise,” said Kim Zuber, PA-C, executive director of the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and outreach chair for the National Kidney Foundation in St. Petersburg, Fla.

Kidney disease also is an expensive problem that accounts for approximately 20% of the Medicare budget in the United States, she said in a virtual presentation at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“It’s important that we know how to identify it and how to slow the progression if possible, and what to do when we can no longer control the disease,” she said.

Notably, the rate of growth for kidney disease is highest among adults aged 20-45 years, said Ms. Zuber. “That is the group who will live for many years with kidney disease,” but should be in their peak years of working and earning. “That is the group we do not want to develop chronic diseases.”

“Look for kidney disease. It’s not always on the chart; it is often missed because people don’t think of it,” Ms. Zuber said. Anyone over 60 years has likely lost some kidney function. Other risk factors include minority/ethnicity, hypertension or cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and a family history of kidney disease.

Women are more likely to develop chronic kidney disease (CKD), but less likely to go on dialysis, said Ms. Zuber. “What I find fascinating is that a history of oophorectomy” increases risk. Other less obvious risk factors in a medical history that should prompt a kidney disease screening include mothers who drank during pregnancy, individuals with a history of acute kidney disease, lupus, sarcoid, amyloid, gout, or other autoimmune conditions, as well as a history of kidney stones of cancer. Kidney donors or transplant recipients are at increased risk, as are smokers, soda drinkers, and heavy salt users.

CKD is missed by many health care providers, Ms. Zuber said. For example, she cited data from more than 270,000 veterans treated at a Veterans Affairs hospital in Texas, which suggested that the likelihood of adding CKD to a patient’s diagnosis was 43.7% even if lab results confirmed CKD.
 

Find the patients

There are many formulas for defining kidney function, Ms. Zuber said. The estimation of creatinine clearance (eCrCl) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) are among them. The most common definition is to calculate eGFR using the CKD-EPI formula. Cystatin C is more exact, but it is not standardized, so a lab in one state does not use the same formula as one in another state.

Overall, all these formulas are plus or minus 30%. “It is an estimate,” she said. Within the stages of CKD, “what we know is that, if you have a high GFR, that’s good, but patients who are losing albumin are at increased risk for CKD.” The albumin is more of a risk factor for CKD than GFR, so the GFR test used doesn’t make much difference, whereas, “if you have a lot of albumin in your urine, you are going downhill,” she said.

Normally, everyone loses kidney function with age, Ms. Zuber said. Starting at age 30, individuals lose about 1 mL/min per year in measures of GFR, however, this progression is more rapid among those with CKD, so “we need to find those people who are progressing more quickly than normal.”

The way to identify the high-risk patients is albumin, Ms. Zuber said. Health care providers need to test the urine and check albumin for high levels of albumin loss through urine, and many providers simply don’t routinely conduct urine tests for patients with other CKD risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension.

Albuminuria levels of 2,000 mg/g are the most concerning, and a urine-albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) test is the most effective tool to monitor kidney function, Ms. Zuber said.

She recommends ordering a UACR test at least once a year to monitor kidney loss in all patients with hypertension, diabetes, lupus, and other risk factors including race and a history of acute kidney injury.
 

Keep them healthy

Managing patients with chronic kidney disease includes attention to several categories: hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, and mental health, Ms. Zuber said.

“If hypertension doesn’t cause your CKD, your CKD will cause hypertension,” she said. The goal for patients with CKD is a target systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg. “As kidney disease progresses, hypertension becomes harder to control,” she added. Lifestyle changes including exercise, low-fat diet, limited use of salt, weight loss if needed, and stress reduction strategies can help.

For patients with diabetes and CKD, work towards a target hemoglobin A1c of 7.0 for early CKD, and of 8% for stage 4/5 or for older patients with multiple comorbidities, Ms. Zuber said. All types of insulin are safe for CKD patients. “Kidney function declines at twice the normal rate for diabetes patients; however, SGLT2 inhibitors are very renoprotective. You may not see a drop in A1c, but you are protecting the kidney.”

For patients with obesity and CKD, data show that bariatric surgery (gastric bypass) lowers mortality in diabetes and also protects the heart and kidneys, said Ms. Zuber. Overall, central obesity increases CKD risk independent of any other risk factors, but losing weight, either by surgery or diet/lifestyle, helps save the kidneys.

Cardiovascular disease is the cause of death for more than 70% of kidney disease patients, Ms. Zuber said. CKD patients “are two to three times more likely to have atrial fibrillation, so take the time to listen with that stethoscope,” she added, also emphasizing the importance of statins for all CKD and diabetes patients, and decreasing smoking. In addition, “managing metabolic acidosis slows the loss of kidney function and protects the heart.”

Additional pearls for managing chronic kidney disease include paying attention to a patient’s mental health; depression occurs in roughly 25%-47% of CKD patients, and anxiety in approximately 27%, said Ms. Zuber. Depression “is believed to be the most common psychiatric disorder in patients with end stage renal disease,” and data suggest that managing depression can help improve survival in CKD patients.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Zuber had no financial conflicts to disclose.

“Kidney disease is the most common chronic disease in the United States and the world, and the incidence is on the rise,” said Kim Zuber, PA-C, executive director of the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and outreach chair for the National Kidney Foundation in St. Petersburg, Fla.

Kidney disease also is an expensive problem that accounts for approximately 20% of the Medicare budget in the United States, she said in a virtual presentation at the Metabolic & Endocrine Disease Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“It’s important that we know how to identify it and how to slow the progression if possible, and what to do when we can no longer control the disease,” she said.

Notably, the rate of growth for kidney disease is highest among adults aged 20-45 years, said Ms. Zuber. “That is the group who will live for many years with kidney disease,” but should be in their peak years of working and earning. “That is the group we do not want to develop chronic diseases.”

“Look for kidney disease. It’s not always on the chart; it is often missed because people don’t think of it,” Ms. Zuber said. Anyone over 60 years has likely lost some kidney function. Other risk factors include minority/ethnicity, hypertension or cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and a family history of kidney disease.

Women are more likely to develop chronic kidney disease (CKD), but less likely to go on dialysis, said Ms. Zuber. “What I find fascinating is that a history of oophorectomy” increases risk. Other less obvious risk factors in a medical history that should prompt a kidney disease screening include mothers who drank during pregnancy, individuals with a history of acute kidney disease, lupus, sarcoid, amyloid, gout, or other autoimmune conditions, as well as a history of kidney stones of cancer. Kidney donors or transplant recipients are at increased risk, as are smokers, soda drinkers, and heavy salt users.

CKD is missed by many health care providers, Ms. Zuber said. For example, she cited data from more than 270,000 veterans treated at a Veterans Affairs hospital in Texas, which suggested that the likelihood of adding CKD to a patient’s diagnosis was 43.7% even if lab results confirmed CKD.
 

Find the patients

There are many formulas for defining kidney function, Ms. Zuber said. The estimation of creatinine clearance (eCrCl) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) are among them. The most common definition is to calculate eGFR using the CKD-EPI formula. Cystatin C is more exact, but it is not standardized, so a lab in one state does not use the same formula as one in another state.

Overall, all these formulas are plus or minus 30%. “It is an estimate,” she said. Within the stages of CKD, “what we know is that, if you have a high GFR, that’s good, but patients who are losing albumin are at increased risk for CKD.” The albumin is more of a risk factor for CKD than GFR, so the GFR test used doesn’t make much difference, whereas, “if you have a lot of albumin in your urine, you are going downhill,” she said.

Normally, everyone loses kidney function with age, Ms. Zuber said. Starting at age 30, individuals lose about 1 mL/min per year in measures of GFR, however, this progression is more rapid among those with CKD, so “we need to find those people who are progressing more quickly than normal.”

The way to identify the high-risk patients is albumin, Ms. Zuber said. Health care providers need to test the urine and check albumin for high levels of albumin loss through urine, and many providers simply don’t routinely conduct urine tests for patients with other CKD risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension.

Albuminuria levels of 2,000 mg/g are the most concerning, and a urine-albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) test is the most effective tool to monitor kidney function, Ms. Zuber said.

She recommends ordering a UACR test at least once a year to monitor kidney loss in all patients with hypertension, diabetes, lupus, and other risk factors including race and a history of acute kidney injury.
 

Keep them healthy

Managing patients with chronic kidney disease includes attention to several categories: hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, and mental health, Ms. Zuber said.

“If hypertension doesn’t cause your CKD, your CKD will cause hypertension,” she said. The goal for patients with CKD is a target systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg. “As kidney disease progresses, hypertension becomes harder to control,” she added. Lifestyle changes including exercise, low-fat diet, limited use of salt, weight loss if needed, and stress reduction strategies can help.

For patients with diabetes and CKD, work towards a target hemoglobin A1c of 7.0 for early CKD, and of 8% for stage 4/5 or for older patients with multiple comorbidities, Ms. Zuber said. All types of insulin are safe for CKD patients. “Kidney function declines at twice the normal rate for diabetes patients; however, SGLT2 inhibitors are very renoprotective. You may not see a drop in A1c, but you are protecting the kidney.”

For patients with obesity and CKD, data show that bariatric surgery (gastric bypass) lowers mortality in diabetes and also protects the heart and kidneys, said Ms. Zuber. Overall, central obesity increases CKD risk independent of any other risk factors, but losing weight, either by surgery or diet/lifestyle, helps save the kidneys.

Cardiovascular disease is the cause of death for more than 70% of kidney disease patients, Ms. Zuber said. CKD patients “are two to three times more likely to have atrial fibrillation, so take the time to listen with that stethoscope,” she added, also emphasizing the importance of statins for all CKD and diabetes patients, and decreasing smoking. In addition, “managing metabolic acidosis slows the loss of kidney function and protects the heart.”

Additional pearls for managing chronic kidney disease include paying attention to a patient’s mental health; depression occurs in roughly 25%-47% of CKD patients, and anxiety in approximately 27%, said Ms. Zuber. Depression “is believed to be the most common psychiatric disorder in patients with end stage renal disease,” and data suggest that managing depression can help improve survival in CKD patients.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Ms. Zuber had no financial conflicts to disclose.

When results of the TAILORx trial were presented at ASCO 2018, many oncologists thought it seemed too simple that a single number from a genomic assay could separate patients who would and would not benefit from adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy.

Those oncologists were right to be skeptical. Subsequent data indicated that better predictive tools were needed.

A new tool called “RSClin” may fit the bill. RSClin integrates the prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) with the additional prognostic information conveyed by patient age, tumor grade, and tumor size.

RSClin provides individualized estimates of distant relapse risk for women with node-negative, endocrine sensitive, HER2/neu oncogene-negative early breast cancer – and a quantification of the additive freedom from distant relapse if that patient receives adjuvant chemotherapy. The tool is now available via a tab on the professional portal at https://online.genomichealth.com/.

Details on RSClin, including how the tool was developed and validated, were presented at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Joseph A. Sparano, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
 

Beyond the initial publication of TAILORx

Results from the TAILORx trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2018 offered the potential for genomic risk assessment to guide the choice of postoperative therapy for many women with the most common type of primary breast cancer. The relative risk reduction with chemotherapy increased with increasing RS result.

Subsequent analyses of the TAILORx dataset, published in The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA Oncology in 2019, examined the added effect of parameters of clinical risk (tumor size and grade) and patient age for patients with known genomic risk.

In these analyses, clinical risk was prognostic for recurrence but did not predict the absolute magnitude of chemotherapy benefit, regardless of age. There was a trend toward chemotherapy benefit in women who were younger than 50 years of age who had RS 21-15, but it was irrespective of clinical risk.
 

The development of RSClin

RSClin was derived from a patient-specific meta-analysis of 10,004 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, of whom 9,427 participated in the TAILORx trial.

In TAILORx, which ran from 2006 to 2015, women with RS 0-11 received contemporary hormone therapy alone. Women with RS 12-25 were randomized to receive hormone therapy alone or with conventional combination chemotherapy. Women with RS above 26 received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

The other patients in the meta-analysis participated in NSABP studies B-14 (tamoxifen versus placebo) and B-20 (tamoxifen versus chemotherapy plus tamoxifen).

Cox regression models were fit separately to each study with covariates of the continuous variables of RS result, tumor size, and patient age and the discrete variable of histologic tumor grade (assessed centrally in B-14 and in local laboratories in TAILORx). The prespecified endpoint was time to first distant recurrence.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence risk were generated using baseline risk with TAILORx event rates to reflect current medical practice.

Model estimates were calculated for specified endocrine therapy with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors utilizing the treatment effect hazard ratio from an Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group meta-analysis.

Patient-specific absolute benefit of chemotherapy was estimated by combining patient-specific meta-analysis risk estimates for distant recurrence and for relative chemotherapy benefit using the B-20 and TAILORx trials.
 

RSClin results and external validation

Among all patients in the meta-analysis cohort, RSClin provided a significantly more accurate prediction of distant recurrence events, in comparison with RS alone or clinical-pathologic factors alone.

External validation was performed using data from real-world outcomes from the 1,098 evaluable node-negative patients in the Clalit Health Services registry, of whom 876 received endocrine therapy alone and 222 received endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence closely approximated the observed risk in the registry (standardized hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.15; P < .001). Within each RSClin risk quintile, the average 10-year risk estimate approached the observed Kaplan-Meier estimates in the cohort (Lin concordance correlation = 0.962).
 

Shared decision-making

For many years, the dilemma of whether to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy to a patient with early breast cancer has prompted the generation of tools to quantify a patient’s risk of recurrence and the magnitude of benefit for endocrine therapy and/or chemotherapy.

When the original Adjuvant! Online program was developed, genomic risk profiling was in its infancy. Genomic tools such as the 21-gene RS have subsequently demonstrated that they can help optimize the adjuvant treatment we recommend.

The RSClin tool provides more precise, individualized information than does clinical-pathological or genomic data alone. It prognosticates the risk of distant recurrence of breast cancer, which patients and providers fervently wish to minimize.

RSClin estimates the incremental benefit of contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy over modern endocrine therapy alone, in absolute values, for individual patients. This transparent, discrete, easily explained information is vital for counseling patients.

However, as highlighted in an editorial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, RSClin is not without its potential drawbacks. These include:

• Tumor heterogeneity leading to misleading results.
• Variable patient adherence to endocrine therapy or chemotherapy.
• The influence of comorbid conditions on the risk/benefit ratio.
• The potential of ovarian function suppression in young women to approach the magnitude of benefit associated with chemotherapy.

Accordingly, RSClin may be the latest and best available tool, but it will not be the last.

For patients with RS above 26, for older women with intermediate RS, and for younger women with a low RS and low clinical-pathologic features, RSClin may not influence treatment recommendations.

However, for the common scenario of an intermediate-risk RS and a mix of pathologic features, the accurate prognostication for distant recurrence risk and estimate of absolute benefit from chemotherapy will be terrifically helpful to oncology caregivers.

Dr. Sparano disclosed funding from the National Cancer Institute and travel support from Rhenium.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

When results of the TAILORx trial were presented at ASCO 2018, many oncologists thought it seemed too simple that a single number from a genomic assay could separate patients who would and would not benefit from adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy.

Those oncologists were right to be skeptical. Subsequent data indicated that better predictive tools were needed.

A new tool called “RSClin” may fit the bill. RSClin integrates the prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) with the additional prognostic information conveyed by patient age, tumor grade, and tumor size.

RSClin provides individualized estimates of distant relapse risk for women with node-negative, endocrine sensitive, HER2/neu oncogene-negative early breast cancer – and a quantification of the additive freedom from distant relapse if that patient receives adjuvant chemotherapy. The tool is now available via a tab on the professional portal at https://online.genomichealth.com/.

Details on RSClin, including how the tool was developed and validated, were presented at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Joseph A. Sparano, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
 

Beyond the initial publication of TAILORx

Results from the TAILORx trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2018 offered the potential for genomic risk assessment to guide the choice of postoperative therapy for many women with the most common type of primary breast cancer. The relative risk reduction with chemotherapy increased with increasing RS result.

Subsequent analyses of the TAILORx dataset, published in The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA Oncology in 2019, examined the added effect of parameters of clinical risk (tumor size and grade) and patient age for patients with known genomic risk.

In these analyses, clinical risk was prognostic for recurrence but did not predict the absolute magnitude of chemotherapy benefit, regardless of age. There was a trend toward chemotherapy benefit in women who were younger than 50 years of age who had RS 21-15, but it was irrespective of clinical risk.
 

The development of RSClin

RSClin was derived from a patient-specific meta-analysis of 10,004 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, of whom 9,427 participated in the TAILORx trial.

In TAILORx, which ran from 2006 to 2015, women with RS 0-11 received contemporary hormone therapy alone. Women with RS 12-25 were randomized to receive hormone therapy alone or with conventional combination chemotherapy. Women with RS above 26 received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

The other patients in the meta-analysis participated in NSABP studies B-14 (tamoxifen versus placebo) and B-20 (tamoxifen versus chemotherapy plus tamoxifen).

Cox regression models were fit separately to each study with covariates of the continuous variables of RS result, tumor size, and patient age and the discrete variable of histologic tumor grade (assessed centrally in B-14 and in local laboratories in TAILORx). The prespecified endpoint was time to first distant recurrence.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence risk were generated using baseline risk with TAILORx event rates to reflect current medical practice.

Model estimates were calculated for specified endocrine therapy with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors utilizing the treatment effect hazard ratio from an Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group meta-analysis.

Patient-specific absolute benefit of chemotherapy was estimated by combining patient-specific meta-analysis risk estimates for distant recurrence and for relative chemotherapy benefit using the B-20 and TAILORx trials.
 

RSClin results and external validation

Among all patients in the meta-analysis cohort, RSClin provided a significantly more accurate prediction of distant recurrence events, in comparison with RS alone or clinical-pathologic factors alone.

External validation was performed using data from real-world outcomes from the 1,098 evaluable node-negative patients in the Clalit Health Services registry, of whom 876 received endocrine therapy alone and 222 received endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence closely approximated the observed risk in the registry (standardized hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.15; P < .001). Within each RSClin risk quintile, the average 10-year risk estimate approached the observed Kaplan-Meier estimates in the cohort (Lin concordance correlation = 0.962).
 

Shared decision-making

For many years, the dilemma of whether to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy to a patient with early breast cancer has prompted the generation of tools to quantify a patient’s risk of recurrence and the magnitude of benefit for endocrine therapy and/or chemotherapy.

When the original Adjuvant! Online program was developed, genomic risk profiling was in its infancy. Genomic tools such as the 21-gene RS have subsequently demonstrated that they can help optimize the adjuvant treatment we recommend.

The RSClin tool provides more precise, individualized information than does clinical-pathological or genomic data alone. It prognosticates the risk of distant recurrence of breast cancer, which patients and providers fervently wish to minimize.

RSClin estimates the incremental benefit of contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy over modern endocrine therapy alone, in absolute values, for individual patients. This transparent, discrete, easily explained information is vital for counseling patients.

However, as highlighted in an editorial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, RSClin is not without its potential drawbacks. These include:

• Tumor heterogeneity leading to misleading results.
• Variable patient adherence to endocrine therapy or chemotherapy.
• The influence of comorbid conditions on the risk/benefit ratio.
• The potential of ovarian function suppression in young women to approach the magnitude of benefit associated with chemotherapy.

Accordingly, RSClin may be the latest and best available tool, but it will not be the last.

For patients with RS above 26, for older women with intermediate RS, and for younger women with a low RS and low clinical-pathologic features, RSClin may not influence treatment recommendations.

However, for the common scenario of an intermediate-risk RS and a mix of pathologic features, the accurate prognostication for distant recurrence risk and estimate of absolute benefit from chemotherapy will be terrifically helpful to oncology caregivers.

Dr. Sparano disclosed funding from the National Cancer Institute and travel support from Rhenium.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

When results of the TAILORx trial were presented at ASCO 2018, many oncologists thought it seemed too simple that a single number from a genomic assay could separate patients who would and would not benefit from adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy.

Those oncologists were right to be skeptical. Subsequent data indicated that better predictive tools were needed.

A new tool called “RSClin” may fit the bill. RSClin integrates the prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) with the additional prognostic information conveyed by patient age, tumor grade, and tumor size.

RSClin provides individualized estimates of distant relapse risk for women with node-negative, endocrine sensitive, HER2/neu oncogene-negative early breast cancer – and a quantification of the additive freedom from distant relapse if that patient receives adjuvant chemotherapy. The tool is now available via a tab on the professional portal at https://online.genomichealth.com/.

Details on RSClin, including how the tool was developed and validated, were presented at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Joseph A. Sparano, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.
 

Beyond the initial publication of TAILORx

Results from the TAILORx trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2018 offered the potential for genomic risk assessment to guide the choice of postoperative therapy for many women with the most common type of primary breast cancer. The relative risk reduction with chemotherapy increased with increasing RS result.

Subsequent analyses of the TAILORx dataset, published in The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA Oncology in 2019, examined the added effect of parameters of clinical risk (tumor size and grade) and patient age for patients with known genomic risk.

In these analyses, clinical risk was prognostic for recurrence but did not predict the absolute magnitude of chemotherapy benefit, regardless of age. There was a trend toward chemotherapy benefit in women who were younger than 50 years of age who had RS 21-15, but it was irrespective of clinical risk.
 

The development of RSClin

RSClin was derived from a patient-specific meta-analysis of 10,004 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, of whom 9,427 participated in the TAILORx trial.

In TAILORx, which ran from 2006 to 2015, women with RS 0-11 received contemporary hormone therapy alone. Women with RS 12-25 were randomized to receive hormone therapy alone or with conventional combination chemotherapy. Women with RS above 26 received chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy.

The other patients in the meta-analysis participated in NSABP studies B-14 (tamoxifen versus placebo) and B-20 (tamoxifen versus chemotherapy plus tamoxifen).

Cox regression models were fit separately to each study with covariates of the continuous variables of RS result, tumor size, and patient age and the discrete variable of histologic tumor grade (assessed centrally in B-14 and in local laboratories in TAILORx). The prespecified endpoint was time to first distant recurrence.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence risk were generated using baseline risk with TAILORx event rates to reflect current medical practice.

Model estimates were calculated for specified endocrine therapy with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors utilizing the treatment effect hazard ratio from an Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group meta-analysis.

Patient-specific absolute benefit of chemotherapy was estimated by combining patient-specific meta-analysis risk estimates for distant recurrence and for relative chemotherapy benefit using the B-20 and TAILORx trials.
 

RSClin results and external validation

Among all patients in the meta-analysis cohort, RSClin provided a significantly more accurate prediction of distant recurrence events, in comparison with RS alone or clinical-pathologic factors alone.

External validation was performed using data from real-world outcomes from the 1,098 evaluable node-negative patients in the Clalit Health Services registry, of whom 876 received endocrine therapy alone and 222 received endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy.

RSClin estimates of distant recurrence closely approximated the observed risk in the registry (standardized hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.15; P < .001). Within each RSClin risk quintile, the average 10-year risk estimate approached the observed Kaplan-Meier estimates in the cohort (Lin concordance correlation = 0.962).
 

Shared decision-making

For many years, the dilemma of whether to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy to a patient with early breast cancer has prompted the generation of tools to quantify a patient’s risk of recurrence and the magnitude of benefit for endocrine therapy and/or chemotherapy.

When the original Adjuvant! Online program was developed, genomic risk profiling was in its infancy. Genomic tools such as the 21-gene RS have subsequently demonstrated that they can help optimize the adjuvant treatment we recommend.

The RSClin tool provides more precise, individualized information than does clinical-pathological or genomic data alone. It prognosticates the risk of distant recurrence of breast cancer, which patients and providers fervently wish to minimize.

RSClin estimates the incremental benefit of contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy over modern endocrine therapy alone, in absolute values, for individual patients. This transparent, discrete, easily explained information is vital for counseling patients.

However, as highlighted in an editorial published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, RSClin is not without its potential drawbacks. These include:

• Tumor heterogeneity leading to misleading results.
• Variable patient adherence to endocrine therapy or chemotherapy.
• The influence of comorbid conditions on the risk/benefit ratio.
• The potential of ovarian function suppression in young women to approach the magnitude of benefit associated with chemotherapy.

Accordingly, RSClin may be the latest and best available tool, but it will not be the last.

For patients with RS above 26, for older women with intermediate RS, and for younger women with a low RS and low clinical-pathologic features, RSClin may not influence treatment recommendations.

However, for the common scenario of an intermediate-risk RS and a mix of pathologic features, the accurate prognostication for distant recurrence risk and estimate of absolute benefit from chemotherapy will be terrifically helpful to oncology caregivers.

Dr. Sparano disclosed funding from the National Cancer Institute and travel support from Rhenium.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

A combination of biomarkers identifies patients with luminal early breast cancer who can safely skip chemotherapy after surgery, results from the ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial suggest.

The findings were reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“In early luminal breast cancer, optimal patient selection for omission of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly in patients with one to three involved lymph nodes, is still unclear,” noted principal investigator Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

Successive trials have used nodal status, genomic risk scores, and response to preoperative therapy to home in on subsets of women for whom this practice is safe.

The ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial is a phase 3 trial that enrolled 5,625 patients with luminal (hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative) early breast cancer who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy based on conventional criteria.

The trial combined a static biomarker – Oncotype Dx recurrence score (RS) in the baseline core biopsy – and a dynamic biomarker – Ki-67 response to a 3-week course of preoperative endocrine therapy – to personalize adjuvant therapy.

At SABCS 2020, Dr. Harbeck reported results for 2,290 patients having zero to three involved lymph nodes: 868 patients with RS 0-11 and 1,422 patients with RS 12-25 who had a response to brief preoperative endocrine therapy (a Ki-67 fraction ≤10% at surgery). All were treated with endocrine therapy alone as adjuvant therapy.
 

Similar outcomes

The median follow-up was 60 months. The 5-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% for the group with RS 0-11 and 92.6% for the group with RS 12-25 and a response to the preoperative endocrine therapy.

The study met its primary endpoint, as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups of –3.3% fell just within the predefined margin of –3.3% or less for noninferiority (P = .05).

The groups also had similarly “excellent” distant disease–free survival (96.3% for RS 0-11 and 95.6% for RS 12-25; P = .247) and overall survival (98.0% for RS 0-11 and 97.3% for RS 12-25; P = .160), Dr. Harbeck reported.

The similar distant disease–free survival was consistent regardless of whether women were younger or older than 50 years and regardless of whether women had involved nodes or not.

In multivariate analysis, women had greater risk of distant disease–free survival events if they had three positive lymph nodes versus zero to two (hazard ratio, 3.40) or a pathologic T stage of 2-4 versus 0-1 (HR, 2.24), whereas risk fell with increasing baseline progesterone receptor expression (HR, 0.92).

“Neither patient age nor study arm were prognostic factors for patient outcome,” Dr. Harbeck noted.

In stratified analysis, the negative impact of having three positive nodes was seen only in the group with RS 12-25 and response to preoperative endocrine therapy, suggesting this subgroup may not be good candidates for omission of chemotherapy, she said.
 

Applying results to practice

“In luminal early breast cancer, the following patients – irrespective of their age – can safely be treated by endocrine therapy alone: patients with zero to three involved lymph nodes and recurrence score 0-11, and those with limited nodal burden (zero to two lymph nodes), recurrence score 12-25, and endocrine response after short preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck summarized.

“Oncotype Dx testing can spare chemotherapy for the majority of patients with up to three involved lymph nodes. Dynamic Ki-67 response testing is feasible in clinical routine and complements baseline risk assessment to define patient selection for therapy deescalation or escalation,” she added.

The investigators have used the trial’s data to develop an algorithm for predicting the probability of response to short-course preoperative endocrine therapy that is available free of charge online (www.enrep.info).

“This may support everyday clinical decision-making in luminal early breast cancer; for example, whether to start a short period of preoperative endocrine therapy at all, and whether to rely on adjuvant endocrine therapy alone, but also in times like these, whether it’s safe to delay surgery by putting patients on prolonged preoperative endocrine therapy if surgical resources are scarce,” Dr. Harbeck commented.

Her clinic is now recruiting patients for the ADAPT Cycle trial, which is testing an endocrine-based approach with a CDK4/6 inhibitor versus chemotherapy in patients who are not candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Therefore, all eligible patients receive the short course of endocrine therapy up front as the standard.

“But if you don’t have a trial, what are you going to do on Monday morning? Please let your patient know whether her tumor is endocrine responsive by doing this 3-week preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck recommended. “It’s easy to do, you can schedule your surgeries better, and in patients with up to three lymph nodes, it helps with your decision-making, not just in the postmenopausal patients but also in the premenopausal patients, regarding whether they can forgo chemotherapy.”

Findings in context

More than 75% of ADAPT patients with RS 12-25 had a response to short-course endocrine therapy, noted invited discussant Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn.

“This implies that the endocrine challenge is not informative for most patients,” he said, adding that a related question is whether the 25% of patients who did not have a response and were therefore given chemotherapy benefited from that therapy.

Dr. Pusztai cautioned that, among patients in the group with RS 12-25 who had a response to preoperative endocrine therapy, certain subgroups were fairly or very small: those aged 50 years or younger (330 patients) and those with two or three positive nodes (75 and 22 patients, respectively).

And collective findings of the similar but much larger TAILORx trial and RxPONDER trial (also reported at SABCS 2020) do suggest a benefit of chemotherapy in younger women, regardless of the number of positive nodes.

“Selection of [estrogen receptor]–positive patients with zero to three lymph nodes for adjuvant chemotherapy currently should be based on age and baseline recurrence score or a similar validated molecular assay,” Dr. Pusztai recommended. “TAILORx results guide us in regard to the use of the recurrence score in node-negative patients with a recurrence score of less than 26, and the recently presented RxPONDER results provide evidence for the use of recurrence score in patients with one to three positive nodes with a recurrence score in the range of 0-26. Both of these trials showed benefit in younger women from adjuvant chemotherapy.”

The ADAPT trial was sponsored by Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Celgene, Bayer, Teva, and Amgen. Dr. Harbeck disclosed relationships with Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Samsung, Sandoz, and Seattle Genetics. Dr. Pusztai disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Athenex, Almac, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biotheranostics, Clovis, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, H2Bio, H3 Biomedicine, Immunomedics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pieris, Radius Health, Syndax, and Seattle Genetics,.

A combination of biomarkers identifies patients with luminal early breast cancer who can safely skip chemotherapy after surgery, results from the ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial suggest.

The findings were reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“In early luminal breast cancer, optimal patient selection for omission of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly in patients with one to three involved lymph nodes, is still unclear,” noted principal investigator Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

Successive trials have used nodal status, genomic risk scores, and response to preoperative therapy to home in on subsets of women for whom this practice is safe.

The ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial is a phase 3 trial that enrolled 5,625 patients with luminal (hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative) early breast cancer who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy based on conventional criteria.

The trial combined a static biomarker – Oncotype Dx recurrence score (RS) in the baseline core biopsy – and a dynamic biomarker – Ki-67 response to a 3-week course of preoperative endocrine therapy – to personalize adjuvant therapy.

At SABCS 2020, Dr. Harbeck reported results for 2,290 patients having zero to three involved lymph nodes: 868 patients with RS 0-11 and 1,422 patients with RS 12-25 who had a response to brief preoperative endocrine therapy (a Ki-67 fraction ≤10% at surgery). All were treated with endocrine therapy alone as adjuvant therapy.
 

Similar outcomes

The median follow-up was 60 months. The 5-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% for the group with RS 0-11 and 92.6% for the group with RS 12-25 and a response to the preoperative endocrine therapy.

The study met its primary endpoint, as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups of –3.3% fell just within the predefined margin of –3.3% or less for noninferiority (P = .05).

The groups also had similarly “excellent” distant disease–free survival (96.3% for RS 0-11 and 95.6% for RS 12-25; P = .247) and overall survival (98.0% for RS 0-11 and 97.3% for RS 12-25; P = .160), Dr. Harbeck reported.

The similar distant disease–free survival was consistent regardless of whether women were younger or older than 50 years and regardless of whether women had involved nodes or not.

In multivariate analysis, women had greater risk of distant disease–free survival events if they had three positive lymph nodes versus zero to two (hazard ratio, 3.40) or a pathologic T stage of 2-4 versus 0-1 (HR, 2.24), whereas risk fell with increasing baseline progesterone receptor expression (HR, 0.92).

“Neither patient age nor study arm were prognostic factors for patient outcome,” Dr. Harbeck noted.

In stratified analysis, the negative impact of having three positive nodes was seen only in the group with RS 12-25 and response to preoperative endocrine therapy, suggesting this subgroup may not be good candidates for omission of chemotherapy, she said.
 

Applying results to practice

“In luminal early breast cancer, the following patients – irrespective of their age – can safely be treated by endocrine therapy alone: patients with zero to three involved lymph nodes and recurrence score 0-11, and those with limited nodal burden (zero to two lymph nodes), recurrence score 12-25, and endocrine response after short preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck summarized.

“Oncotype Dx testing can spare chemotherapy for the majority of patients with up to three involved lymph nodes. Dynamic Ki-67 response testing is feasible in clinical routine and complements baseline risk assessment to define patient selection for therapy deescalation or escalation,” she added.

The investigators have used the trial’s data to develop an algorithm for predicting the probability of response to short-course preoperative endocrine therapy that is available free of charge online (www.enrep.info).

“This may support everyday clinical decision-making in luminal early breast cancer; for example, whether to start a short period of preoperative endocrine therapy at all, and whether to rely on adjuvant endocrine therapy alone, but also in times like these, whether it’s safe to delay surgery by putting patients on prolonged preoperative endocrine therapy if surgical resources are scarce,” Dr. Harbeck commented.

Her clinic is now recruiting patients for the ADAPT Cycle trial, which is testing an endocrine-based approach with a CDK4/6 inhibitor versus chemotherapy in patients who are not candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Therefore, all eligible patients receive the short course of endocrine therapy up front as the standard.

“But if you don’t have a trial, what are you going to do on Monday morning? Please let your patient know whether her tumor is endocrine responsive by doing this 3-week preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck recommended. “It’s easy to do, you can schedule your surgeries better, and in patients with up to three lymph nodes, it helps with your decision-making, not just in the postmenopausal patients but also in the premenopausal patients, regarding whether they can forgo chemotherapy.”

Findings in context

More than 75% of ADAPT patients with RS 12-25 had a response to short-course endocrine therapy, noted invited discussant Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn.

“This implies that the endocrine challenge is not informative for most patients,” he said, adding that a related question is whether the 25% of patients who did not have a response and were therefore given chemotherapy benefited from that therapy.

Dr. Pusztai cautioned that, among patients in the group with RS 12-25 who had a response to preoperative endocrine therapy, certain subgroups were fairly or very small: those aged 50 years or younger (330 patients) and those with two or three positive nodes (75 and 22 patients, respectively).

And collective findings of the similar but much larger TAILORx trial and RxPONDER trial (also reported at SABCS 2020) do suggest a benefit of chemotherapy in younger women, regardless of the number of positive nodes.

“Selection of [estrogen receptor]–positive patients with zero to three lymph nodes for adjuvant chemotherapy currently should be based on age and baseline recurrence score or a similar validated molecular assay,” Dr. Pusztai recommended. “TAILORx results guide us in regard to the use of the recurrence score in node-negative patients with a recurrence score of less than 26, and the recently presented RxPONDER results provide evidence for the use of recurrence score in patients with one to three positive nodes with a recurrence score in the range of 0-26. Both of these trials showed benefit in younger women from adjuvant chemotherapy.”

The ADAPT trial was sponsored by Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Celgene, Bayer, Teva, and Amgen. Dr. Harbeck disclosed relationships with Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Samsung, Sandoz, and Seattle Genetics. Dr. Pusztai disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Athenex, Almac, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biotheranostics, Clovis, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, H2Bio, H3 Biomedicine, Immunomedics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pieris, Radius Health, Syndax, and Seattle Genetics,.

A combination of biomarkers identifies patients with luminal early breast cancer who can safely skip chemotherapy after surgery, results from the ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial suggest.

The findings were reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“In early luminal breast cancer, optimal patient selection for omission of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly in patients with one to three involved lymph nodes, is still unclear,” noted principal investigator Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

Successive trials have used nodal status, genomic risk scores, and response to preoperative therapy to home in on subsets of women for whom this practice is safe.

The ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial is a phase 3 trial that enrolled 5,625 patients with luminal (hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative) early breast cancer who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy based on conventional criteria.

The trial combined a static biomarker – Oncotype Dx recurrence score (RS) in the baseline core biopsy – and a dynamic biomarker – Ki-67 response to a 3-week course of preoperative endocrine therapy – to personalize adjuvant therapy.

At SABCS 2020, Dr. Harbeck reported results for 2,290 patients having zero to three involved lymph nodes: 868 patients with RS 0-11 and 1,422 patients with RS 12-25 who had a response to brief preoperative endocrine therapy (a Ki-67 fraction ≤10% at surgery). All were treated with endocrine therapy alone as adjuvant therapy.
 

Similar outcomes

The median follow-up was 60 months. The 5-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% for the group with RS 0-11 and 92.6% for the group with RS 12-25 and a response to the preoperative endocrine therapy.

The study met its primary endpoint, as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups of –3.3% fell just within the predefined margin of –3.3% or less for noninferiority (P = .05).

The groups also had similarly “excellent” distant disease–free survival (96.3% for RS 0-11 and 95.6% for RS 12-25; P = .247) and overall survival (98.0% for RS 0-11 and 97.3% for RS 12-25; P = .160), Dr. Harbeck reported.

The similar distant disease–free survival was consistent regardless of whether women were younger or older than 50 years and regardless of whether women had involved nodes or not.

In multivariate analysis, women had greater risk of distant disease–free survival events if they had three positive lymph nodes versus zero to two (hazard ratio, 3.40) or a pathologic T stage of 2-4 versus 0-1 (HR, 2.24), whereas risk fell with increasing baseline progesterone receptor expression (HR, 0.92).

“Neither patient age nor study arm were prognostic factors for patient outcome,” Dr. Harbeck noted.

In stratified analysis, the negative impact of having three positive nodes was seen only in the group with RS 12-25 and response to preoperative endocrine therapy, suggesting this subgroup may not be good candidates for omission of chemotherapy, she said.
 

Applying results to practice

“In luminal early breast cancer, the following patients – irrespective of their age – can safely be treated by endocrine therapy alone: patients with zero to three involved lymph nodes and recurrence score 0-11, and those with limited nodal burden (zero to two lymph nodes), recurrence score 12-25, and endocrine response after short preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck summarized.

“Oncotype Dx testing can spare chemotherapy for the majority of patients with up to three involved lymph nodes. Dynamic Ki-67 response testing is feasible in clinical routine and complements baseline risk assessment to define patient selection for therapy deescalation or escalation,” she added.

The investigators have used the trial’s data to develop an algorithm for predicting the probability of response to short-course preoperative endocrine therapy that is available free of charge online (www.enrep.info).

“This may support everyday clinical decision-making in luminal early breast cancer; for example, whether to start a short period of preoperative endocrine therapy at all, and whether to rely on adjuvant endocrine therapy alone, but also in times like these, whether it’s safe to delay surgery by putting patients on prolonged preoperative endocrine therapy if surgical resources are scarce,” Dr. Harbeck commented.

Her clinic is now recruiting patients for the ADAPT Cycle trial, which is testing an endocrine-based approach with a CDK4/6 inhibitor versus chemotherapy in patients who are not candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Therefore, all eligible patients receive the short course of endocrine therapy up front as the standard.

“But if you don’t have a trial, what are you going to do on Monday morning? Please let your patient know whether her tumor is endocrine responsive by doing this 3-week preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck recommended. “It’s easy to do, you can schedule your surgeries better, and in patients with up to three lymph nodes, it helps with your decision-making, not just in the postmenopausal patients but also in the premenopausal patients, regarding whether they can forgo chemotherapy.”

Findings in context

More than 75% of ADAPT patients with RS 12-25 had a response to short-course endocrine therapy, noted invited discussant Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn.

“This implies that the endocrine challenge is not informative for most patients,” he said, adding that a related question is whether the 25% of patients who did not have a response and were therefore given chemotherapy benefited from that therapy.

Dr. Pusztai cautioned that, among patients in the group with RS 12-25 who had a response to preoperative endocrine therapy, certain subgroups were fairly or very small: those aged 50 years or younger (330 patients) and those with two or three positive nodes (75 and 22 patients, respectively).

And collective findings of the similar but much larger TAILORx trial and RxPONDER trial (also reported at SABCS 2020) do suggest a benefit of chemotherapy in younger women, regardless of the number of positive nodes.

“Selection of [estrogen receptor]–positive patients with zero to three lymph nodes for adjuvant chemotherapy currently should be based on age and baseline recurrence score or a similar validated molecular assay,” Dr. Pusztai recommended. “TAILORx results guide us in regard to the use of the recurrence score in node-negative patients with a recurrence score of less than 26, and the recently presented RxPONDER results provide evidence for the use of recurrence score in patients with one to three positive nodes with a recurrence score in the range of 0-26. Both of these trials showed benefit in younger women from adjuvant chemotherapy.”

The ADAPT trial was sponsored by Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Celgene, Bayer, Teva, and Amgen. Dr. Harbeck disclosed relationships with Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Samsung, Sandoz, and Seattle Genetics. Dr. Pusztai disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Athenex, Almac, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biotheranostics, Clovis, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, H2Bio, H3 Biomedicine, Immunomedics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pieris, Radius Health, Syndax, and Seattle Genetics,.

The histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat failed to overcome resistance to endocrine therapy in hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer in a phase 3 trial.

The study showed no difference in response, progression-free survival, or overall survival whether entinostat was added to exemestane or exemestane was given with placebo.

These results were reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Clearly, we were very disappointed with these results after so many years of work,” said study investigator Roisin M. Connolly, MD, of University College Cork (Ireland) and Cork University Hospital in Wilton, Ireland.

“I think we’ve realized again the importance of phase 3 confirmation of promising phase 2 data,” she said, referring to results of the phase 2 ENCORE 301 trial.

“I think that the results speak for themselves. In this population of endocrine-resistant patients, the HDAC inhibitors clearly do not have a role unless we find something further on additional review of the correlative analyses,” Dr. Connolly said.
 

Why HDAC inhibitors in advanced breast cancer?

“Despite many advances in breast cancer in recent decades, resistance to endocrine therapy remains a significant clinical problem,” Dr. Connolly said.

One suggested approach to overcoming this resistance is to block the overacetylation of histones using HDAC inhibitors. This has been shown in preclinical studies with entinostat to inhibit growth factor signaling pathways and normalize the expression of the estrogen receptor, helping to overcome resistance to aromatase inhibitors in letrozole-resistant mouse models.

Results from the phase 2 ENCORE 301 trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, also suggested this approach could be effective. There was a 2-month improvement in progression-free survival and an 8.3-month improvement in overall survival when entinostat was added to exemestane.
 

Phase 3 trial details and results

The E2112 study enrolled 608 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, 85% of whom had experienced progression after taking a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the metastatic setting.

The type of endocrine resistance, such as if ESR1 mutations were present, was not determined. Tissue samples and blood samples have been archived, so this might be a question that is investigated later on.

A quarter of patients had received one prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease, around 30% had been treated with fulvestrant, and about a third of patients had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

“I think we had representation from both patients who did receive and did not receive a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor within E2112,” Dr. Connolly said, observing that the study started in 2014 before the use of these drugs was really established.

Patients were randomized to receive entinostat (5 mg daily) plus exemestane (25 mg daily) or exemestane plus placebo (at the same dose).

The median progression-free survival was 3.3 months in the entinostat arm and 3.1 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .30).

The median overall survival was 23.4 months with entinostat and 21.7 months with placebo (HR, 0.99; P = .94). The overall response rates were a respective 4.6% and 4.3%.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in the entinostat arm. The most common were neutropenia (20% with entinostat vs. <1% with placebo), hypophosphatemia (14% vs. 1%), and anemia (8% vs. 2%).

There were three treatment-related deaths (heart failure, pneumonitis, and hepatic failure) in the entinostat arm and one (MI) in the placebo arm.
 

Implications and next steps

“The study is completely negative, with no benefit in progression-free or overall survival,” commented Hal Burstein, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved in the study.

“It is unclear that this is a good clinical approach for further trials in advanced breast cancer, as correlative studies suggest the drug did hit the target,” he added.

Dr. Burstein’s takeaway was that “HDAC inhibition is stuck in a cul-de-sac, if not a complete dead end, for breast cancer.”

When asked if using a different aromatase inhibitor than exemestane might have affected the results, Dr. Connolly said that “it’s possible, but I think it’s unlikely.”

Exemestane was used in the phase 3 trial because it had been used in the ENCORE 301 study. Preclinical work had shown that both letrozole- and exemestane-resistant models benefited from the addition of an HDAC inhibitor.

“There is ongoing investigation of HDAC inhibitors in various combinations,” Dr. Connolly said. “HDAC inhibitors have been used with chemotherapies and other targeted therapies over the years but unfortunately have not broken into the solid tumor space. I think that ongoing work will be required to see where these may fit in the future.”

The E2122 study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group with funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Connolly disclosed relationships with Genentech, Merck, Novartis, Puma Biotechnology, Marcogenics, and Pfizer. Dr. Burstein had no relevant disclosures.

The histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat failed to overcome resistance to endocrine therapy in hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer in a phase 3 trial.

The study showed no difference in response, progression-free survival, or overall survival whether entinostat was added to exemestane or exemestane was given with placebo.

These results were reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Clearly, we were very disappointed with these results after so many years of work,” said study investigator Roisin M. Connolly, MD, of University College Cork (Ireland) and Cork University Hospital in Wilton, Ireland.

“I think we’ve realized again the importance of phase 3 confirmation of promising phase 2 data,” she said, referring to results of the phase 2 ENCORE 301 trial.

“I think that the results speak for themselves. In this population of endocrine-resistant patients, the HDAC inhibitors clearly do not have a role unless we find something further on additional review of the correlative analyses,” Dr. Connolly said.
 

Why HDAC inhibitors in advanced breast cancer?

“Despite many advances in breast cancer in recent decades, resistance to endocrine therapy remains a significant clinical problem,” Dr. Connolly said.

One suggested approach to overcoming this resistance is to block the overacetylation of histones using HDAC inhibitors. This has been shown in preclinical studies with entinostat to inhibit growth factor signaling pathways and normalize the expression of the estrogen receptor, helping to overcome resistance to aromatase inhibitors in letrozole-resistant mouse models.

Results from the phase 2 ENCORE 301 trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, also suggested this approach could be effective. There was a 2-month improvement in progression-free survival and an 8.3-month improvement in overall survival when entinostat was added to exemestane.
 

Phase 3 trial details and results

The E2112 study enrolled 608 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, 85% of whom had experienced progression after taking a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the metastatic setting.

The type of endocrine resistance, such as if ESR1 mutations were present, was not determined. Tissue samples and blood samples have been archived, so this might be a question that is investigated later on.

A quarter of patients had received one prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease, around 30% had been treated with fulvestrant, and about a third of patients had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

“I think we had representation from both patients who did receive and did not receive a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor within E2112,” Dr. Connolly said, observing that the study started in 2014 before the use of these drugs was really established.

Patients were randomized to receive entinostat (5 mg daily) plus exemestane (25 mg daily) or exemestane plus placebo (at the same dose).

The median progression-free survival was 3.3 months in the entinostat arm and 3.1 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .30).

The median overall survival was 23.4 months with entinostat and 21.7 months with placebo (HR, 0.99; P = .94). The overall response rates were a respective 4.6% and 4.3%.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in the entinostat arm. The most common were neutropenia (20% with entinostat vs. <1% with placebo), hypophosphatemia (14% vs. 1%), and anemia (8% vs. 2%).

There were three treatment-related deaths (heart failure, pneumonitis, and hepatic failure) in the entinostat arm and one (MI) in the placebo arm.
 

Implications and next steps

“The study is completely negative, with no benefit in progression-free or overall survival,” commented Hal Burstein, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved in the study.

“It is unclear that this is a good clinical approach for further trials in advanced breast cancer, as correlative studies suggest the drug did hit the target,” he added.

Dr. Burstein’s takeaway was that “HDAC inhibition is stuck in a cul-de-sac, if not a complete dead end, for breast cancer.”

When asked if using a different aromatase inhibitor than exemestane might have affected the results, Dr. Connolly said that “it’s possible, but I think it’s unlikely.”

Exemestane was used in the phase 3 trial because it had been used in the ENCORE 301 study. Preclinical work had shown that both letrozole- and exemestane-resistant models benefited from the addition of an HDAC inhibitor.

“There is ongoing investigation of HDAC inhibitors in various combinations,” Dr. Connolly said. “HDAC inhibitors have been used with chemotherapies and other targeted therapies over the years but unfortunately have not broken into the solid tumor space. I think that ongoing work will be required to see where these may fit in the future.”

The E2122 study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group with funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Connolly disclosed relationships with Genentech, Merck, Novartis, Puma Biotechnology, Marcogenics, and Pfizer. Dr. Burstein had no relevant disclosures.

The histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat failed to overcome resistance to endocrine therapy in hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer in a phase 3 trial.

The study showed no difference in response, progression-free survival, or overall survival whether entinostat was added to exemestane or exemestane was given with placebo.

These results were reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Clearly, we were very disappointed with these results after so many years of work,” said study investigator Roisin M. Connolly, MD, of University College Cork (Ireland) and Cork University Hospital in Wilton, Ireland.

“I think we’ve realized again the importance of phase 3 confirmation of promising phase 2 data,” she said, referring to results of the phase 2 ENCORE 301 trial.

“I think that the results speak for themselves. In this population of endocrine-resistant patients, the HDAC inhibitors clearly do not have a role unless we find something further on additional review of the correlative analyses,” Dr. Connolly said.
 

Why HDAC inhibitors in advanced breast cancer?

“Despite many advances in breast cancer in recent decades, resistance to endocrine therapy remains a significant clinical problem,” Dr. Connolly said.

One suggested approach to overcoming this resistance is to block the overacetylation of histones using HDAC inhibitors. This has been shown in preclinical studies with entinostat to inhibit growth factor signaling pathways and normalize the expression of the estrogen receptor, helping to overcome resistance to aromatase inhibitors in letrozole-resistant mouse models.

Results from the phase 2 ENCORE 301 trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, also suggested this approach could be effective. There was a 2-month improvement in progression-free survival and an 8.3-month improvement in overall survival when entinostat was added to exemestane.
 

Phase 3 trial details and results

The E2112 study enrolled 608 women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, 85% of whom had experienced progression after taking a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the metastatic setting.

The type of endocrine resistance, such as if ESR1 mutations were present, was not determined. Tissue samples and blood samples have been archived, so this might be a question that is investigated later on.

A quarter of patients had received one prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease, around 30% had been treated with fulvestrant, and about a third of patients had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

“I think we had representation from both patients who did receive and did not receive a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor within E2112,” Dr. Connolly said, observing that the study started in 2014 before the use of these drugs was really established.

Patients were randomized to receive entinostat (5 mg daily) plus exemestane (25 mg daily) or exemestane plus placebo (at the same dose).

The median progression-free survival was 3.3 months in the entinostat arm and 3.1 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .30).

The median overall survival was 23.4 months with entinostat and 21.7 months with placebo (HR, 0.99; P = .94). The overall response rates were a respective 4.6% and 4.3%.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in the entinostat arm. The most common were neutropenia (20% with entinostat vs. <1% with placebo), hypophosphatemia (14% vs. 1%), and anemia (8% vs. 2%).

There were three treatment-related deaths (heart failure, pneumonitis, and hepatic failure) in the entinostat arm and one (MI) in the placebo arm.
 

Implications and next steps

“The study is completely negative, with no benefit in progression-free or overall survival,” commented Hal Burstein, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved in the study.

“It is unclear that this is a good clinical approach for further trials in advanced breast cancer, as correlative studies suggest the drug did hit the target,” he added.

Dr. Burstein’s takeaway was that “HDAC inhibition is stuck in a cul-de-sac, if not a complete dead end, for breast cancer.”

When asked if using a different aromatase inhibitor than exemestane might have affected the results, Dr. Connolly said that “it’s possible, but I think it’s unlikely.”

Exemestane was used in the phase 3 trial because it had been used in the ENCORE 301 study. Preclinical work had shown that both letrozole- and exemestane-resistant models benefited from the addition of an HDAC inhibitor.

“There is ongoing investigation of HDAC inhibitors in various combinations,” Dr. Connolly said. “HDAC inhibitors have been used with chemotherapies and other targeted therapies over the years but unfortunately have not broken into the solid tumor space. I think that ongoing work will be required to see where these may fit in the future.”

The E2122 study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group with funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Connolly disclosed relationships with Genentech, Merck, Novartis, Puma Biotechnology, Marcogenics, and Pfizer. Dr. Burstein had no relevant disclosures.

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

aotto@mdedge.com

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

aotto@mdedge.com

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

aotto@mdedge.com

Irradiating the whole pelvis rather than just the prostate reduces the likelihood of recurrence in men with high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer, according to a randomized controlled trial.

Results from the trial, called POP-RT, were reported at the European Society for Radiology and Oncology 2020 Online Congress.

“A question that has been plaguing the radiation oncology community for the last 3 or 4 decades is, ‘Should the pelvic nodes be treated prophylactically in patients with high-risk prostate cancer?’ ” said Vedang Murthy, MD, of Tata Memorial Centre in Mumbai, India, who presented the POP-RT trial at the meeting.

“A lot of effort has gone into trying to answer this question,” he added.

Unfortunately, the question has remained unanswered, as neither the RTOG 9413 trial nor the French GETUG-01 trial showed clear evidence of benefit.

To gain some insight, Dr. Murthy and colleagues conducted the POP-RT trial (NCT02302105). The study’s final analysis included 222 men with locally advanced prostate cancer who had node-negative disease based on MRI and PSMA PET, but had a high risk for occult pelvic nodal involvement (20% or greater according to the Roach formula). The median nodal risk for the trial population was 37.8%.

The men were randomized to daily image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy to the prostate (68 Gy in 25 fractions to the gland and seminal vesicles) or to the whole pelvis (the former plus 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the pelvic nodes as a simultaneous integrated boost, including the bilateral common iliac, internal and external iliac, presacral, and obturator node groups). All patients also received at least 2 years of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).
 

Efficacy and toxicity

At a median follow-up of 68 months, the 5-year rate of biochemical failure–free survival, the trial’s primary endpoint, was superior with whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT), at 95.0%, relative to prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT), at 81.2% (hazard ratio, 0.23; P < .0001), Dr. Murthy reported.

Disease-free survival was better in the WPRT group than in the PORT group (89.5% vs. 77.2%; HR, 0.40; P = .002), and the same was true for distant metastasis–free survival (95.0% vs. 87.9%; HR, 0.35; P = .01).

Overall survival was 92.5% with WPRT and 90.8% with PORT, a nonsignificant difference (P = .83).

At the time of biochemical failure, disease recurred in the regional pelvic nodes (with or without distant metastases) in just 1 patient in the WPRT group, compared with 15 patients in the PORT group. Recurrences at other sites were similar across the groups.

The WPRT group had a significantly higher rate of late genitourinary toxicity (17.7% vs. 7.5%; P = .03) but not late gastrointestinal toxicity (6.5% vs. 3.8%; P = .4).

There were no grade 4 toxicities, and the groups were similar on patient-reported outcomes.
 

Explaining the results

Several factors may explain why the POP-RT trial was clearly positive for WPRT, whereas the RTOG 9413 and GETUG-01 trials were not, according to Dr. Murthy.

“We had a much higher-risk group,” he elaborated (with 55% of patients having a nodal risk exceeding 35%), and PSMA PET was used in the workup in the large majority of patients, improving diagnostic sensitivity.

In delivering radiation, “we made sure to include the common iliac nodes and to go up to L4 and L5 and the common iliac junction,” Dr. Murthy further noted.

Also, the POP-RT trial had a higher prostate dose (biological equivalent dose of 129.6 Gy), used image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and administered ADT for much longer than the other trial (2 years vs. 4-8 months).

“Prophylactic radiotherapy in this trial improved biochemical failure–free survival and disease-free survival in high-risk prostate cancer patients. The improvement in outcomes was seen in spite of giving long-term ADT and in spite of doing dose escalation,” Dr. Murthy summarized. “There is no overall survival difference as of yet, but that remains to be seen.”

“Based on these results, it would be fair to say that whole-pelvis radiotherapy should be considered for these patients with high-risk and very-high-risk prostate cancer,” he concluded.
 

Practice-changing findings

“Overall, I’m very impressed with this study,” commented Colleen A. Lawton, MD, of Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. “The primary endpoint of biochemical failure–free survival is not a great one, but fortunately, the distant metastasis-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was statistically improved also.”

The POP-RT results are not surprising given other lines of evidence, she noted. For example, early results of a trial among postprostatectomy patients (RTOG 0534) suggest a benefit of pelvic lymph node radiation, and findings from studies in other adenocarcinomas, such as breast and rectal, show that treating the lymph nodes improves outcomes.

“I think the data are practice changing. … mostly because there is so much retrospective data suggesting a benefit from lymph node radiotherapy for prostate cancer, especially with adequate doses, but this is the first prospective randomized trial to use proper dosing to the primary and lymph nodes, and adequate ADT,” Dr. Lawton said. “The use of PSMA PET is also important from a selection perspective in identifying patients more likely to have microscopic versus gross lymph node involvement and in follow-up to identify which patients fail in the lymph nodes.”

“I agree with the authors’ conclusions and would definitely recommend lymph node radiotherapy for these high- and very-high-risk patients in addition to the ADT,” she concluded. “The dose to the lymph nodes at 50 Gy in 25 fractions is a bit higher than has been used in all of the RTOG trials (45 Gy in 25 fractions), and I do believe that adequate doses are critical in seeing a benefit to treatment.”

The POP-RT trial was funded by Tata Memorial Centre, the Uro-Oncology Disease Management Group, and the Terry Fox Foundation. Dr. Murthy disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lawton disclosed that she was a coauthor of the RTOG 9413 trial.

SOURCE: Murthy V et al. ESTRO 2020, Abstract OC-0613.

Irradiating the whole pelvis rather than just the prostate reduces the likelihood of recurrence in men with high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer, according to a randomized controlled trial.

Results from the trial, called POP-RT, were reported at the European Society for Radiology and Oncology 2020 Online Congress.

“A question that has been plaguing the radiation oncology community for the last 3 or 4 decades is, ‘Should the pelvic nodes be treated prophylactically in patients with high-risk prostate cancer?’ ” said Vedang Murthy, MD, of Tata Memorial Centre in Mumbai, India, who presented the POP-RT trial at the meeting.

“A lot of effort has gone into trying to answer this question,” he added.

Unfortunately, the question has remained unanswered, as neither the RTOG 9413 trial nor the French GETUG-01 trial showed clear evidence of benefit.

To gain some insight, Dr. Murthy and colleagues conducted the POP-RT trial (NCT02302105). The study’s final analysis included 222 men with locally advanced prostate cancer who had node-negative disease based on MRI and PSMA PET, but had a high risk for occult pelvic nodal involvement (20% or greater according to the Roach formula). The median nodal risk for the trial population was 37.8%.

The men were randomized to daily image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy to the prostate (68 Gy in 25 fractions to the gland and seminal vesicles) or to the whole pelvis (the former plus 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the pelvic nodes as a simultaneous integrated boost, including the bilateral common iliac, internal and external iliac, presacral, and obturator node groups). All patients also received at least 2 years of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).
 

Efficacy and toxicity

At a median follow-up of 68 months, the 5-year rate of biochemical failure–free survival, the trial’s primary endpoint, was superior with whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT), at 95.0%, relative to prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT), at 81.2% (hazard ratio, 0.23; P < .0001), Dr. Murthy reported.

Disease-free survival was better in the WPRT group than in the PORT group (89.5% vs. 77.2%; HR, 0.40; P = .002), and the same was true for distant metastasis–free survival (95.0% vs. 87.9%; HR, 0.35; P = .01).

Overall survival was 92.5% with WPRT and 90.8% with PORT, a nonsignificant difference (P = .83).

At the time of biochemical failure, disease recurred in the regional pelvic nodes (with or without distant metastases) in just 1 patient in the WPRT group, compared with 15 patients in the PORT group. Recurrences at other sites were similar across the groups.

The WPRT group had a significantly higher rate of late genitourinary toxicity (17.7% vs. 7.5%; P = .03) but not late gastrointestinal toxicity (6.5% vs. 3.8%; P = .4).

There were no grade 4 toxicities, and the groups were similar on patient-reported outcomes.
 

Explaining the results

Several factors may explain why the POP-RT trial was clearly positive for WPRT, whereas the RTOG 9413 and GETUG-01 trials were not, according to Dr. Murthy.

“We had a much higher-risk group,” he elaborated (with 55% of patients having a nodal risk exceeding 35%), and PSMA PET was used in the workup in the large majority of patients, improving diagnostic sensitivity.

In delivering radiation, “we made sure to include the common iliac nodes and to go up to L4 and L5 and the common iliac junction,” Dr. Murthy further noted.

Also, the POP-RT trial had a higher prostate dose (biological equivalent dose of 129.6 Gy), used image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and administered ADT for much longer than the other trial (2 years vs. 4-8 months).

“Prophylactic radiotherapy in this trial improved biochemical failure–free survival and disease-free survival in high-risk prostate cancer patients. The improvement in outcomes was seen in spite of giving long-term ADT and in spite of doing dose escalation,” Dr. Murthy summarized. “There is no overall survival difference as of yet, but that remains to be seen.”

“Based on these results, it would be fair to say that whole-pelvis radiotherapy should be considered for these patients with high-risk and very-high-risk prostate cancer,” he concluded.
 

Practice-changing findings

“Overall, I’m very impressed with this study,” commented Colleen A. Lawton, MD, of Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. “The primary endpoint of biochemical failure–free survival is not a great one, but fortunately, the distant metastasis-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was statistically improved also.”

The POP-RT results are not surprising given other lines of evidence, she noted. For example, early results of a trial among postprostatectomy patients (RTOG 0534) suggest a benefit of pelvic lymph node radiation, and findings from studies in other adenocarcinomas, such as breast and rectal, show that treating the lymph nodes improves outcomes.

“I think the data are practice changing. … mostly because there is so much retrospective data suggesting a benefit from lymph node radiotherapy for prostate cancer, especially with adequate doses, but this is the first prospective randomized trial to use proper dosing to the primary and lymph nodes, and adequate ADT,” Dr. Lawton said. “The use of PSMA PET is also important from a selection perspective in identifying patients more likely to have microscopic versus gross lymph node involvement and in follow-up to identify which patients fail in the lymph nodes.”

“I agree with the authors’ conclusions and would definitely recommend lymph node radiotherapy for these high- and very-high-risk patients in addition to the ADT,” she concluded. “The dose to the lymph nodes at 50 Gy in 25 fractions is a bit higher than has been used in all of the RTOG trials (45 Gy in 25 fractions), and I do believe that adequate doses are critical in seeing a benefit to treatment.”

The POP-RT trial was funded by Tata Memorial Centre, the Uro-Oncology Disease Management Group, and the Terry Fox Foundation. Dr. Murthy disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lawton disclosed that she was a coauthor of the RTOG 9413 trial.

SOURCE: Murthy V et al. ESTRO 2020, Abstract OC-0613.

Irradiating the whole pelvis rather than just the prostate reduces the likelihood of recurrence in men with high-risk locally advanced prostate cancer, according to a randomized controlled trial.

Results from the trial, called POP-RT, were reported at the European Society for Radiology and Oncology 2020 Online Congress.

“A question that has been plaguing the radiation oncology community for the last 3 or 4 decades is, ‘Should the pelvic nodes be treated prophylactically in patients with high-risk prostate cancer?’ ” said Vedang Murthy, MD, of Tata Memorial Centre in Mumbai, India, who presented the POP-RT trial at the meeting.

“A lot of effort has gone into trying to answer this question,” he added.

Unfortunately, the question has remained unanswered, as neither the RTOG 9413 trial nor the French GETUG-01 trial showed clear evidence of benefit.

To gain some insight, Dr. Murthy and colleagues conducted the POP-RT trial (NCT02302105). The study’s final analysis included 222 men with locally advanced prostate cancer who had node-negative disease based on MRI and PSMA PET, but had a high risk for occult pelvic nodal involvement (20% or greater according to the Roach formula). The median nodal risk for the trial population was 37.8%.

The men were randomized to daily image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy to the prostate (68 Gy in 25 fractions to the gland and seminal vesicles) or to the whole pelvis (the former plus 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the pelvic nodes as a simultaneous integrated boost, including the bilateral common iliac, internal and external iliac, presacral, and obturator node groups). All patients also received at least 2 years of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).
 

Efficacy and toxicity

At a median follow-up of 68 months, the 5-year rate of biochemical failure–free survival, the trial’s primary endpoint, was superior with whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT), at 95.0%, relative to prostate-only radiotherapy (PORT), at 81.2% (hazard ratio, 0.23; P < .0001), Dr. Murthy reported.

Disease-free survival was better in the WPRT group than in the PORT group (89.5% vs. 77.2%; HR, 0.40; P = .002), and the same was true for distant metastasis–free survival (95.0% vs. 87.9%; HR, 0.35; P = .01).

Overall survival was 92.5% with WPRT and 90.8% with PORT, a nonsignificant difference (P = .83).

At the time of biochemical failure, disease recurred in the regional pelvic nodes (with or without distant metastases) in just 1 patient in the WPRT group, compared with 15 patients in the PORT group. Recurrences at other sites were similar across the groups.

The WPRT group had a significantly higher rate of late genitourinary toxicity (17.7% vs. 7.5%; P = .03) but not late gastrointestinal toxicity (6.5% vs. 3.8%; P = .4).

There were no grade 4 toxicities, and the groups were similar on patient-reported outcomes.
 

Explaining the results

Several factors may explain why the POP-RT trial was clearly positive for WPRT, whereas the RTOG 9413 and GETUG-01 trials were not, according to Dr. Murthy.

“We had a much higher-risk group,” he elaborated (with 55% of patients having a nodal risk exceeding 35%), and PSMA PET was used in the workup in the large majority of patients, improving diagnostic sensitivity.

In delivering radiation, “we made sure to include the common iliac nodes and to go up to L4 and L5 and the common iliac junction,” Dr. Murthy further noted.

Also, the POP-RT trial had a higher prostate dose (biological equivalent dose of 129.6 Gy), used image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and administered ADT for much longer than the other trial (2 years vs. 4-8 months).

“Prophylactic radiotherapy in this trial improved biochemical failure–free survival and disease-free survival in high-risk prostate cancer patients. The improvement in outcomes was seen in spite of giving long-term ADT and in spite of doing dose escalation,” Dr. Murthy summarized. “There is no overall survival difference as of yet, but that remains to be seen.”

“Based on these results, it would be fair to say that whole-pelvis radiotherapy should be considered for these patients with high-risk and very-high-risk prostate cancer,” he concluded.
 

Practice-changing findings

“Overall, I’m very impressed with this study,” commented Colleen A. Lawton, MD, of Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. “The primary endpoint of biochemical failure–free survival is not a great one, but fortunately, the distant metastasis-free survival, a secondary endpoint, was statistically improved also.”

The POP-RT results are not surprising given other lines of evidence, she noted. For example, early results of a trial among postprostatectomy patients (RTOG 0534) suggest a benefit of pelvic lymph node radiation, and findings from studies in other adenocarcinomas, such as breast and rectal, show that treating the lymph nodes improves outcomes.

“I think the data are practice changing. … mostly because there is so much retrospective data suggesting a benefit from lymph node radiotherapy for prostate cancer, especially with adequate doses, but this is the first prospective randomized trial to use proper dosing to the primary and lymph nodes, and adequate ADT,” Dr. Lawton said. “The use of PSMA PET is also important from a selection perspective in identifying patients more likely to have microscopic versus gross lymph node involvement and in follow-up to identify which patients fail in the lymph nodes.”

“I agree with the authors’ conclusions and would definitely recommend lymph node radiotherapy for these high- and very-high-risk patients in addition to the ADT,” she concluded. “The dose to the lymph nodes at 50 Gy in 25 fractions is a bit higher than has been used in all of the RTOG trials (45 Gy in 25 fractions), and I do believe that adequate doses are critical in seeing a benefit to treatment.”

The POP-RT trial was funded by Tata Memorial Centre, the Uro-Oncology Disease Management Group, and the Terry Fox Foundation. Dr. Murthy disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lawton disclosed that she was a coauthor of the RTOG 9413 trial.

SOURCE: Murthy V et al. ESTRO 2020, Abstract OC-0613.