User login
Can Glucarpidase Help Reverse Methotrexate Kidney Damage?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
- Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
- The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
- Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
- Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
- Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
- No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).
IN PRACTICE:
“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
- Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
- The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
- Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
- Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
- Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
- No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).
IN PRACTICE:
“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
- Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
- The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
- Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
- Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
- Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
- No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).
IN PRACTICE:
“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Cancer Drugs: Do Patients Prefer Faster Access or Clinical Benefit?
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them.
The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials.
During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities.
In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.
Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.
But is that really the case?
The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works.
In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios.
The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).
The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).
The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios.
Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty.
Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.
“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.
Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview.
In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.
“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings.
“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”
However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added.
What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.
The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
With Chemo, Blinatumomab Boosts DFS in Pediatric B-ALL
Among pediatric patients with B-ALL followed for a mean of 2.5 years (1.6-3.2 years), 718 patients in the blinatumomab-plus-chemotherapy group had a 3-year DFS of 96.0 ± 1.2%, compared with 87.9 ± 2.1% of the 722 patients in the chemotherapy-only group, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
“Our results demonstrate that blinatumomab added to chemotherapy represents a new treatment standard for most patients with NCI [National Cancer Institute] standard-risk [B-ALL],” said first author Rachel E. Rau, MD, Seattle Children’s Hospital, University of Washington, during a news briefing.
As Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, noted in a news briefing: “B-cell ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable. However, some children still relapse following standard chemotherapy treatments and then have a much grimmer outcome.”
The AALL1731 study was initiated in 2019 with a recruitment goal of 2245 participants. The patients were over age 1 and less than 10 years, with an initial white blood cell count of < 50,000/μL and were considered to be standard risk–high or standard risk–average.
The control group received standard-intensity chemotherapy (standard risk–average patients) or augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster–based chemotherapy (standard risk–high patients). In addition, the blinatumomab groups received two cycles of the drug.
Randomization was terminated in 2024 at 1440 patients because of the positive results. Patients had a median age of 4.3 years (2.8-6.4), 52.6% were boys, 26% were Hispanic, and 5% were non-Hispanic Black.
The addition of blinatumomab improved DFS by 61% (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P < .0001).
In the group of standard risk–average patients, 3-year DFS was 97.5±1.3% in the blinatumomab group vs 90.2±2.3% in the control group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.69). For standard risk–high patients, 3-year DFS was 94.1 ± 2.5% and 84.8 ± 3.8%, respectively.
Six deaths occurred in remission, all in standard risk–high patients and none during blinatumomab cycles. Out of first courses of blinatumomab, 0.3% were associated with Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and 0.7% with seizures.
“We did note higher rates of subsequent sepsis and catheter-related infections in our standard risk–average patients who received blinatumomab,” Rau said.
“The improvement in disease survival was secondary to significant reduction in bone marrow relapse,” Rau added. “We did not see a similar reduction in the more rare event of an isolated central nervous system relapse. This finding was not surprising given blinatumomab’s known limited activity in the central nervous system.”
Rau noted that there are two challenges in terms of access to blinatumomab: its cost, at about $225,000 per a 2023 report, and its administration. The drug is administered via 4-week-long infusions. “The delivery method is very cumbersome,” she said.
“These are big problems that are going to take the combined efforts of pediatric oncologist cancer consortia and pharmaceutical industry partners as well as government agencies,” she said. Fortunately, she said, in June 2024 the Food and Drug Administration approved blinatumomab for adult and pediatric patients 1 month and older with CD19-positive Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-ALL in the consolidation phase of multiphase chemotherapy.
“So it’s relatively easy, at least, to prescribe blinatumomab in the United States for our patients that we feel would benefit from it,” she said.
As for method of delivery, Rau said easier-to-deliver formulations are in development.
Rau has disclosed spousal employment (AbbVie), serving on advisory boards (Servier, Jazz), consulting, and receiving honoraria (Jazz). Other study authors report various disclosures including ties with Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab. Dunbar has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among pediatric patients with B-ALL followed for a mean of 2.5 years (1.6-3.2 years), 718 patients in the blinatumomab-plus-chemotherapy group had a 3-year DFS of 96.0 ± 1.2%, compared with 87.9 ± 2.1% of the 722 patients in the chemotherapy-only group, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
“Our results demonstrate that blinatumomab added to chemotherapy represents a new treatment standard for most patients with NCI [National Cancer Institute] standard-risk [B-ALL],” said first author Rachel E. Rau, MD, Seattle Children’s Hospital, University of Washington, during a news briefing.
As Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, noted in a news briefing: “B-cell ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable. However, some children still relapse following standard chemotherapy treatments and then have a much grimmer outcome.”
The AALL1731 study was initiated in 2019 with a recruitment goal of 2245 participants. The patients were over age 1 and less than 10 years, with an initial white blood cell count of < 50,000/μL and were considered to be standard risk–high or standard risk–average.
The control group received standard-intensity chemotherapy (standard risk–average patients) or augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster–based chemotherapy (standard risk–high patients). In addition, the blinatumomab groups received two cycles of the drug.
Randomization was terminated in 2024 at 1440 patients because of the positive results. Patients had a median age of 4.3 years (2.8-6.4), 52.6% were boys, 26% were Hispanic, and 5% were non-Hispanic Black.
The addition of blinatumomab improved DFS by 61% (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P < .0001).
In the group of standard risk–average patients, 3-year DFS was 97.5±1.3% in the blinatumomab group vs 90.2±2.3% in the control group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.69). For standard risk–high patients, 3-year DFS was 94.1 ± 2.5% and 84.8 ± 3.8%, respectively.
Six deaths occurred in remission, all in standard risk–high patients and none during blinatumomab cycles. Out of first courses of blinatumomab, 0.3% were associated with Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and 0.7% with seizures.
“We did note higher rates of subsequent sepsis and catheter-related infections in our standard risk–average patients who received blinatumomab,” Rau said.
“The improvement in disease survival was secondary to significant reduction in bone marrow relapse,” Rau added. “We did not see a similar reduction in the more rare event of an isolated central nervous system relapse. This finding was not surprising given blinatumomab’s known limited activity in the central nervous system.”
Rau noted that there are two challenges in terms of access to blinatumomab: its cost, at about $225,000 per a 2023 report, and its administration. The drug is administered via 4-week-long infusions. “The delivery method is very cumbersome,” she said.
“These are big problems that are going to take the combined efforts of pediatric oncologist cancer consortia and pharmaceutical industry partners as well as government agencies,” she said. Fortunately, she said, in June 2024 the Food and Drug Administration approved blinatumomab for adult and pediatric patients 1 month and older with CD19-positive Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-ALL in the consolidation phase of multiphase chemotherapy.
“So it’s relatively easy, at least, to prescribe blinatumomab in the United States for our patients that we feel would benefit from it,” she said.
As for method of delivery, Rau said easier-to-deliver formulations are in development.
Rau has disclosed spousal employment (AbbVie), serving on advisory boards (Servier, Jazz), consulting, and receiving honoraria (Jazz). Other study authors report various disclosures including ties with Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab. Dunbar has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among pediatric patients with B-ALL followed for a mean of 2.5 years (1.6-3.2 years), 718 patients in the blinatumomab-plus-chemotherapy group had a 3-year DFS of 96.0 ± 1.2%, compared with 87.9 ± 2.1% of the 722 patients in the chemotherapy-only group, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
“Our results demonstrate that blinatumomab added to chemotherapy represents a new treatment standard for most patients with NCI [National Cancer Institute] standard-risk [B-ALL],” said first author Rachel E. Rau, MD, Seattle Children’s Hospital, University of Washington, during a news briefing.
As Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, noted in a news briefing: “B-cell ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable. However, some children still relapse following standard chemotherapy treatments and then have a much grimmer outcome.”
The AALL1731 study was initiated in 2019 with a recruitment goal of 2245 participants. The patients were over age 1 and less than 10 years, with an initial white blood cell count of < 50,000/μL and were considered to be standard risk–high or standard risk–average.
The control group received standard-intensity chemotherapy (standard risk–average patients) or augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster–based chemotherapy (standard risk–high patients). In addition, the blinatumomab groups received two cycles of the drug.
Randomization was terminated in 2024 at 1440 patients because of the positive results. Patients had a median age of 4.3 years (2.8-6.4), 52.6% were boys, 26% were Hispanic, and 5% were non-Hispanic Black.
The addition of blinatumomab improved DFS by 61% (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P < .0001).
In the group of standard risk–average patients, 3-year DFS was 97.5±1.3% in the blinatumomab group vs 90.2±2.3% in the control group (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.69). For standard risk–high patients, 3-year DFS was 94.1 ± 2.5% and 84.8 ± 3.8%, respectively.
Six deaths occurred in remission, all in standard risk–high patients and none during blinatumomab cycles. Out of first courses of blinatumomab, 0.3% were associated with Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and 0.7% with seizures.
“We did note higher rates of subsequent sepsis and catheter-related infections in our standard risk–average patients who received blinatumomab,” Rau said.
“The improvement in disease survival was secondary to significant reduction in bone marrow relapse,” Rau added. “We did not see a similar reduction in the more rare event of an isolated central nervous system relapse. This finding was not surprising given blinatumomab’s known limited activity in the central nervous system.”
Rau noted that there are two challenges in terms of access to blinatumomab: its cost, at about $225,000 per a 2023 report, and its administration. The drug is administered via 4-week-long infusions. “The delivery method is very cumbersome,” she said.
“These are big problems that are going to take the combined efforts of pediatric oncologist cancer consortia and pharmaceutical industry partners as well as government agencies,” she said. Fortunately, she said, in June 2024 the Food and Drug Administration approved blinatumomab for adult and pediatric patients 1 month and older with CD19-positive Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-ALL in the consolidation phase of multiphase chemotherapy.
“So it’s relatively easy, at least, to prescribe blinatumomab in the United States for our patients that we feel would benefit from it,” she said.
As for method of delivery, Rau said easier-to-deliver formulations are in development.
Rau has disclosed spousal employment (AbbVie), serving on advisory boards (Servier, Jazz), consulting, and receiving honoraria (Jazz). Other study authors report various disclosures including ties with Amgen, the maker of blinatumomab. Dunbar has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2024
High-Fiber Diet Linked to Improved Stem Cell Transplant, GvHD Outcomes
Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits.
“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.
Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.
However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.
For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.
Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration.
Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).
After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health.
Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).
Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD.
Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).
However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).
A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.
The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.
“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview.
“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.
“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”
Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.
The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.
“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.
“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.
Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned.
“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said.
High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?
The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).
NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.
Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 or higher.
The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI.
Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.
“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement.
“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.
The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.
Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not.
“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.
The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits.
“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.
Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.
However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.
For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.
Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration.
Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).
After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health.
Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).
Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD.
Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).
However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).
A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.
The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.
“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview.
“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.
“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”
Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.
The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.
“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.
“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.
Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned.
“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said.
High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?
The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).
NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.
Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 or higher.
The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI.
Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.
“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement.
“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.
The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.
Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not.
“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.
The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Importantly, the findings suggest standard recommendations for patients of a low-fiber diet following allo-HCT may run counter to the potential benefits.
“Significant decrease of fiber intake during transplantation is detrimental. It’s a lost opportunity to promote a healthy gut microbiome, recover from treatment-related microbiota injury, and protect against GVHD,” first author Jenny Paredes, PhD, a staff scientist at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, said in a press statement for the study presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.
Although the health benefits of dietary fiber on the gut microbiome are well-documented, the effects have recently been shown to extend to outcomes after allo-HCT in general, with researchers finding increased overall survival when there is higher diversity in the gut microbiome, including a higher abundance of butyrate producers and lower abundance of enterococcus, explained Paredes when presenting the findings.
Acute GvHD, a common and potentially life-threatening complication of allo-HCT, can have symptoms that mimic irritable bowel disease (IBD), including abdominal pain or cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The low-fiber diet recommendations, including avoidance of raw vegetables and fruits before and after the allo-HCT procedure, are designed to counter those effects, as well as reduce exposure to bacteria.
However, with data suggesting the potential benefits of dietary fiber could extend to the prevention of GvHD, Paredes and colleagues further investigated.
For the observational study, they evaluated all dietary data on 173 allo-HCT recipients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from 10 days prior to transplantation to 30 days post-transplantation, representing 3837 patient-days in total.
Data collected from the patients also included rRNA sequencing of fecal samples and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentration.
Participants had a median age of 60, and 45% were female. The most common diseases being treated were leukemia (50%), myelodysplastic syndrome (25%), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (8.7%).
After stratifying patients based on high- or low-fiber intake, those with high-fiber intake were found to have significantly higher rates of microbial α-diversity (P = .009), a higher abundance of butyrate producers (P = .03), and a higher concentration of butyrate (P = .02), a short-chain fatty acid that plays a key role in gut health.
Furthermore, the high-fiber group had significantly higher overall survival in an analysis extending to 24 months relative to day 12 of the study (P = .04).
Focusing on GvHD outcomes, the authors further evaluated data on 101 non-T-cell–depleted patients, and identified 29 patients without GvHD and 24 who developed lower gastrointestinal (GI) GvHD.
Patients with lower GI GvHD had significantly lower fecal concentrations of butyrate (P = .03) and acetate (P = .02).
However, patients among those in the high-fiber intake group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of developing GvHD at day 100 (P = .034) and a lower incidence of lower GI GvHD (P = .04).
A separate preclinical analysis of a mouse model with GvHD further showed that a fiber-rich diet (12% cellulose) significantly increased the expression of genes associated with reduced GvHD, including IDO1 and CEACAM1, and those associated with enrichment of the bile acid pathway.
The findings suggest an opportunity to improve outcomes with relatively small dietary changes, Paredes said.
“Strategies to increase the fiber concentration in these diets paired with the safety that these patients need is what makes this study exciting,” she said in an interview.
“Increasing the fiber intake by 10 to 20 grams/day could potentially increase the microbiome diversity and abundance of butyrate producers, which have been correlated with higher overall survival rates post allo-HCT,” she continued.
“[For instance], that could be an avocado per day, or it could be a small salad per day, or a small vegetable soup per day,” she added. “I would encourage institutions to re-evaluate their menu planning and see how to include more fiber into the meals in a safe way.”
Ultimately, “I think that a dietary intervention outweighs the risks of a pharmacological intervention,” Paredes added.
The necessary duration of a high-fiber diet to produce the beneficial effects on allo-HCT outcomes would likely be over the course of the pre- and post-transplant periods, Paredes added.
“With the survival analysis extending from 5 days before transplantation to 12 days post, we are looking at an intervention that potentially could be around 20 days,” she said.
“We would love to take advantage of the pretransplantation window, in particular, and we can see that just increasing the fiber intake by about 20 grams during this window was shown to improve overall survival after 24 months,” Paredes added.
Importantly, however, some patients may not be appropriate for high-fiber dietary changes, Paredes cautioned.
“Patients that have developed IBD-like symptoms and severe GvHD patients, for example, or with lower GI-GvHD grades 3 and 4 would be not appropriate candidates for a high-fiber diet,” she said.
High-Fiber Diet Slows MM Disease Progression?
The potential important benefits of a high-fiber diet in blood diseases were further demonstrated in a separate study also by MSKCC researchers presented at the meeting, which showed encouraging signs that a plant-based diet rich in fiber could potentially slow disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM).
NUTRIVENTION included 20 patients with the two precancerous MM conditions, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), which can last for years without progressing to MM and which researchers have speculated could be a potential opportunity to intervene to prevent progression to cancer.
Patients were provided with a 12-week controlled diet plus health coaching for another 3 months; no meals or coaching were provided for the rest of the 1-year study period. Participants had a median age of 62 and, with being overweight/obesity a risk factor for MM, had a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 or higher.
The trial met its endpoint of feasibility, with 91% adherence in the first 3 months. The rate of consumption of unprocessed plant foods increased from 20% at baseline to 92% on the intervention. Overall adherence was 58%. Insulin and anti-inflammatory markers also improved and, despite no calorie restriction, there was a 7% sustained reduction in BMI.
Notably, two patients in the study had stabilization of disease progression.
“We saw improvements in all spheres, including metabolism, microbiome, and immune system markers, and we also saw that two patients with progressive disease had the progression stabilize and slow down on the intervention,” principal investigator Urvi A. Shah, MD, said in a press statement.
“Even though it’s just two cases, to our knowledge, it has not been shown before in an intervention setting that you can improve diet and lifestyle and actually slow or change the trajectory of the disease,” she noted.
The researchers caution that findings in mice do not necessarily translate to humans but note another experiment in mice with SMM that showed animals fed a normal diet had progression to MM after a median of 12 weeks, compared with a median of 30 weeks among those fed a high-fiber diet.
Notably, all mice in the normal-diet group progressed to MM, whereas 40% of mice in the high-fiber group did not.
“We found that a high-fiber plant-based diet can improve BMI, improve insulin resistance [and] the microbiome through diversity and butyrate producers, and with the production of short-chain fatty acids, can have effects on inflammation, immunity, innate and adaptive antitumor immunity, and tumor cells or plasma cells,” Shah said during her presentation.
The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute and private foundations. Paredes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Shah has reported relationships with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2024
ASH 2024: New Leukemia Txs, Fewer Blood Clots With GLP-1 Rxs
Children’s Disorders: Major Progress in B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL), Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP)
While B-ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable, some patients face grim outcomes after they relapse following chemotherapy, said Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A new study reports that adding the targeted cancer drug blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy boosted disease-free survival in standard-risk pediatric patients. “They definitively demonstrate a benefit with the addition of this immunotherapeutic drug, achieving 97% disease-free survival at 3 years on the blinatumomab plus chemotherapy arm compared to 90% for the control arm with standard therapies alone,” Dunbar said. “This trial will establish the addition of blinatumomab for childhood B-ALL as standard of care.”
A reporter asked Dunbar about the risk for severe immune activation syndrome. “These immune cell engagers can result in cytokine release syndrome and other severe immune activation consequences,” she said. “However, it appears that children seem to be less susceptible to those, at least in terms of severity, than adults. In this study, the complications that occurred didn’t result in mortality and were easily treatable. So that was not a major drawback to the addition of this drug.”
The blinatumomab study is sponsored by Children’s Oncology Group.
In ITP, thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists such as eltrombopag (Promacta) are a mainstay of second- or third-line treatment in children and adults with severe cases, Dunbar said. “However, TPO agonists are generally only given after months to years of failures of corticosteroids, IVIG [intravenous immunoglobulin], or splenectomy.”
In the phase 3, randomized, controlled PINES trial, researchers explored whether the drug could improve outcomes in children with untreated or very recent-onset severe ITP vs standard of care.
“The children treated with eltrombopag had double the response rate with a much lower need for rescue therapies,” Dunbar said. The percentage of patients who received rescue therapy was 19% in the eltrombopag arm (15/78) vs 46% in the control arm (18/39, P = .002).
“Given the potential short- and long-term consequences of corticosteroids and other standard treatments in children, this study is encouraging and will likely result in a change in the standard of care for pediatric ITP,” Dunbar said.
The eltrombopag study is sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America and funded by Novartis.
Fewer Blood Clots: Another Big Benefit for Weight Loss Drugs?
Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami in Florida, highlighted an analysis of whether GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially approved as type 2 diabetes treatments, affect the risk for VTE.
Researchers tracked patients with type 2 diabetes — 366,369 who received the drugs and 290,219 who took dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. The patients who took GLP-1 agonists “had lower rates of venous thromboembolic events after 1 year,” Sekeres said. “The risk reduction was actually pretty substantial.”
In these patients, the risk for VTE was 18% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and there were 22% and 15% reductions in pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis, respectively (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92).
Drug Regimen Improves Outcomes in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
An interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of patients with untreated CLL “demonstrated superior progression-free survival with acalabrutinib and venetoclax versus what we consider more classic chemotherapy of fludarabine, Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab,” Sekeres said. “Similar findings were seen with acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab vs that classic chemotherapy.”
Overall response rates were 93% for both the acalabrutinib/venetoclax regimens vs 75% for bendamustine/rituximab, Sekeres noted, and overall survival was higher for acalabrutinib/venetoclax vs the two classic chemotherapy regimens (HR, 0.33; P < .0001).
However, Sekeres questioned the value of comparing acalabrutinib/venetoclax with classical chemotherapy regimens. “A lot of times we have a lot of new, really good, really effective therapy to offer to patients that isn’t as toxic as previous chemotherapy.”
In contrast, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are “your grandmother’s or your grandfather’s chemotherapy. It’s pretty toxic stuff,” he said.
Sekeres said it would have been better to compare acalabrutinib/venetoclax with a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–based regimen.
The German CLL Study Group is listed as the trial’s sponsor, and AstraZeneca is a collaborator. Dunbar disclosed research funding from Novartis. Sekeres had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Children’s Disorders: Major Progress in B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL), Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP)
While B-ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable, some patients face grim outcomes after they relapse following chemotherapy, said Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A new study reports that adding the targeted cancer drug blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy boosted disease-free survival in standard-risk pediatric patients. “They definitively demonstrate a benefit with the addition of this immunotherapeutic drug, achieving 97% disease-free survival at 3 years on the blinatumomab plus chemotherapy arm compared to 90% for the control arm with standard therapies alone,” Dunbar said. “This trial will establish the addition of blinatumomab for childhood B-ALL as standard of care.”
A reporter asked Dunbar about the risk for severe immune activation syndrome. “These immune cell engagers can result in cytokine release syndrome and other severe immune activation consequences,” she said. “However, it appears that children seem to be less susceptible to those, at least in terms of severity, than adults. In this study, the complications that occurred didn’t result in mortality and were easily treatable. So that was not a major drawback to the addition of this drug.”
The blinatumomab study is sponsored by Children’s Oncology Group.
In ITP, thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists such as eltrombopag (Promacta) are a mainstay of second- or third-line treatment in children and adults with severe cases, Dunbar said. “However, TPO agonists are generally only given after months to years of failures of corticosteroids, IVIG [intravenous immunoglobulin], or splenectomy.”
In the phase 3, randomized, controlled PINES trial, researchers explored whether the drug could improve outcomes in children with untreated or very recent-onset severe ITP vs standard of care.
“The children treated with eltrombopag had double the response rate with a much lower need for rescue therapies,” Dunbar said. The percentage of patients who received rescue therapy was 19% in the eltrombopag arm (15/78) vs 46% in the control arm (18/39, P = .002).
“Given the potential short- and long-term consequences of corticosteroids and other standard treatments in children, this study is encouraging and will likely result in a change in the standard of care for pediatric ITP,” Dunbar said.
The eltrombopag study is sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America and funded by Novartis.
Fewer Blood Clots: Another Big Benefit for Weight Loss Drugs?
Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami in Florida, highlighted an analysis of whether GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially approved as type 2 diabetes treatments, affect the risk for VTE.
Researchers tracked patients with type 2 diabetes — 366,369 who received the drugs and 290,219 who took dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. The patients who took GLP-1 agonists “had lower rates of venous thromboembolic events after 1 year,” Sekeres said. “The risk reduction was actually pretty substantial.”
In these patients, the risk for VTE was 18% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and there were 22% and 15% reductions in pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis, respectively (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92).
Drug Regimen Improves Outcomes in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
An interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of patients with untreated CLL “demonstrated superior progression-free survival with acalabrutinib and venetoclax versus what we consider more classic chemotherapy of fludarabine, Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab,” Sekeres said. “Similar findings were seen with acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab vs that classic chemotherapy.”
Overall response rates were 93% for both the acalabrutinib/venetoclax regimens vs 75% for bendamustine/rituximab, Sekeres noted, and overall survival was higher for acalabrutinib/venetoclax vs the two classic chemotherapy regimens (HR, 0.33; P < .0001).
However, Sekeres questioned the value of comparing acalabrutinib/venetoclax with classical chemotherapy regimens. “A lot of times we have a lot of new, really good, really effective therapy to offer to patients that isn’t as toxic as previous chemotherapy.”
In contrast, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are “your grandmother’s or your grandfather’s chemotherapy. It’s pretty toxic stuff,” he said.
Sekeres said it would have been better to compare acalabrutinib/venetoclax with a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–based regimen.
The German CLL Study Group is listed as the trial’s sponsor, and AstraZeneca is a collaborator. Dunbar disclosed research funding from Novartis. Sekeres had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Children’s Disorders: Major Progress in B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL), Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP)
While B-ALL is the most common childhood cancer and one of the most treatable, some patients face grim outcomes after they relapse following chemotherapy, said Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
A new study reports that adding the targeted cancer drug blinatumomab (Blincyto) to chemotherapy boosted disease-free survival in standard-risk pediatric patients. “They definitively demonstrate a benefit with the addition of this immunotherapeutic drug, achieving 97% disease-free survival at 3 years on the blinatumomab plus chemotherapy arm compared to 90% for the control arm with standard therapies alone,” Dunbar said. “This trial will establish the addition of blinatumomab for childhood B-ALL as standard of care.”
A reporter asked Dunbar about the risk for severe immune activation syndrome. “These immune cell engagers can result in cytokine release syndrome and other severe immune activation consequences,” she said. “However, it appears that children seem to be less susceptible to those, at least in terms of severity, than adults. In this study, the complications that occurred didn’t result in mortality and were easily treatable. So that was not a major drawback to the addition of this drug.”
The blinatumomab study is sponsored by Children’s Oncology Group.
In ITP, thrombopoietin (TPO) agonists such as eltrombopag (Promacta) are a mainstay of second- or third-line treatment in children and adults with severe cases, Dunbar said. “However, TPO agonists are generally only given after months to years of failures of corticosteroids, IVIG [intravenous immunoglobulin], or splenectomy.”
In the phase 3, randomized, controlled PINES trial, researchers explored whether the drug could improve outcomes in children with untreated or very recent-onset severe ITP vs standard of care.
“The children treated with eltrombopag had double the response rate with a much lower need for rescue therapies,” Dunbar said. The percentage of patients who received rescue therapy was 19% in the eltrombopag arm (15/78) vs 46% in the control arm (18/39, P = .002).
“Given the potential short- and long-term consequences of corticosteroids and other standard treatments in children, this study is encouraging and will likely result in a change in the standard of care for pediatric ITP,” Dunbar said.
The eltrombopag study is sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America and funded by Novartis.
Fewer Blood Clots: Another Big Benefit for Weight Loss Drugs?
Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami in Florida, highlighted an analysis of whether GLP-1 receptor agonists, initially approved as type 2 diabetes treatments, affect the risk for VTE.
Researchers tracked patients with type 2 diabetes — 366,369 who received the drugs and 290,219 who took dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. The patients who took GLP-1 agonists “had lower rates of venous thromboembolic events after 1 year,” Sekeres said. “The risk reduction was actually pretty substantial.”
In these patients, the risk for VTE was 18% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and there were 22% and 15% reductions in pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis, respectively (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86 and HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92).
Drug Regimen Improves Outcomes in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
An interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial of patients with untreated CLL “demonstrated superior progression-free survival with acalabrutinib and venetoclax versus what we consider more classic chemotherapy of fludarabine, Cytoxan [cyclophosphamide], and rituximab or bendamustine and rituximab,” Sekeres said. “Similar findings were seen with acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab vs that classic chemotherapy.”
Overall response rates were 93% for both the acalabrutinib/venetoclax regimens vs 75% for bendamustine/rituximab, Sekeres noted, and overall survival was higher for acalabrutinib/venetoclax vs the two classic chemotherapy regimens (HR, 0.33; P < .0001).
However, Sekeres questioned the value of comparing acalabrutinib/venetoclax with classical chemotherapy regimens. “A lot of times we have a lot of new, really good, really effective therapy to offer to patients that isn’t as toxic as previous chemotherapy.”
In contrast, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are “your grandmother’s or your grandfather’s chemotherapy. It’s pretty toxic stuff,” he said.
Sekeres said it would have been better to compare acalabrutinib/venetoclax with a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–based regimen.
The German CLL Study Group is listed as the trial’s sponsor, and AstraZeneca is a collaborator. Dunbar disclosed research funding from Novartis. Sekeres had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2024
Inside the Patient-Oncologist Bond: Why It’s Often So Strong
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Revumenib Approved for R/R Acute Leukemia With KMT2A Translocation
The approval makes the oral small-molecule menin inhibitor the first pharmaceutical to carry the indication. It blocks the binding of menin to mutated KMT2A fusion proteins, tamping down the process that leads to the disease.
Although a relatively uncommon form of leukemia, KMT2A rearrangements are a major driver of acute leukemia in infants.
Approval was based on a single-arm of the open-label AUGMENT-101 trial with 104 adult and pediatric patients with the mutation. Pediatric patients were at least 30 days old.
The rate of complete remission (CR) plus CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21.2% (22 patients) with a median duration of 6.4 months. The median time to remission was 1.9 months.
Eighty-three patients required blood cell and/or platelet transfusions at baseline; 12 (14%) did not need transfusions for 56 days afterward. Of the 21 who were transfusion free at baseline, 10 (48%) remained so over the same period.
The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients were hemorrhage, nausea, increased phosphate, musculoskeletal pain, infection, increased aspartate aminotransferase, febrile neutropenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased intact parathyroid hormone, bacterial infection, diarrhea, differentiation syndrome, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased phosphate, increased triglycerides, decreased potassium, decreased appetite, constipation, edema, viral infection, fatigue, and increased alkaline phosphatase.
The recommended dose varies by weight and concomitant use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors. Because of an anticipated delay in commercial availability, the lowest strength dose of revumenib will be available through an expanded access program for patients who weigh < 40 kg.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval makes the oral small-molecule menin inhibitor the first pharmaceutical to carry the indication. It blocks the binding of menin to mutated KMT2A fusion proteins, tamping down the process that leads to the disease.
Although a relatively uncommon form of leukemia, KMT2A rearrangements are a major driver of acute leukemia in infants.
Approval was based on a single-arm of the open-label AUGMENT-101 trial with 104 adult and pediatric patients with the mutation. Pediatric patients were at least 30 days old.
The rate of complete remission (CR) plus CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21.2% (22 patients) with a median duration of 6.4 months. The median time to remission was 1.9 months.
Eighty-three patients required blood cell and/or platelet transfusions at baseline; 12 (14%) did not need transfusions for 56 days afterward. Of the 21 who were transfusion free at baseline, 10 (48%) remained so over the same period.
The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients were hemorrhage, nausea, increased phosphate, musculoskeletal pain, infection, increased aspartate aminotransferase, febrile neutropenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased intact parathyroid hormone, bacterial infection, diarrhea, differentiation syndrome, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased phosphate, increased triglycerides, decreased potassium, decreased appetite, constipation, edema, viral infection, fatigue, and increased alkaline phosphatase.
The recommended dose varies by weight and concomitant use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors. Because of an anticipated delay in commercial availability, the lowest strength dose of revumenib will be available through an expanded access program for patients who weigh < 40 kg.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval makes the oral small-molecule menin inhibitor the first pharmaceutical to carry the indication. It blocks the binding of menin to mutated KMT2A fusion proteins, tamping down the process that leads to the disease.
Although a relatively uncommon form of leukemia, KMT2A rearrangements are a major driver of acute leukemia in infants.
Approval was based on a single-arm of the open-label AUGMENT-101 trial with 104 adult and pediatric patients with the mutation. Pediatric patients were at least 30 days old.
The rate of complete remission (CR) plus CR with partial hematologic recovery was 21.2% (22 patients) with a median duration of 6.4 months. The median time to remission was 1.9 months.
Eighty-three patients required blood cell and/or platelet transfusions at baseline; 12 (14%) did not need transfusions for 56 days afterward. Of the 21 who were transfusion free at baseline, 10 (48%) remained so over the same period.
The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients were hemorrhage, nausea, increased phosphate, musculoskeletal pain, infection, increased aspartate aminotransferase, febrile neutropenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased intact parathyroid hormone, bacterial infection, diarrhea, differentiation syndrome, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased phosphate, increased triglycerides, decreased potassium, decreased appetite, constipation, edema, viral infection, fatigue, and increased alkaline phosphatase.
The recommended dose varies by weight and concomitant use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors. Because of an anticipated delay in commercial availability, the lowest strength dose of revumenib will be available through an expanded access program for patients who weigh < 40 kg.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Obe-cel, a Novel CD19 CAR T Product for ALL
Approval of the CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T) — which, according to Autolus, was specifically “designed to have a ‘fast-off’ kinetic” to minimize excessive activation of the programmed T cells and thereby increase T-cell persistence and reduce T-cell exhaustion — was based on efficacy and safety findings from the open-label, single-arm FELIX study.
Initial study findings were presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, and updated findings from a pooled analysis of FELIX phase 1b/2 data were presented at the 2023 American Society of Hematology conference.
The pooled analysis showed a complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi) rate of 77% and a CR rate of 57% at a median follow up of 11 months in 124 patients treated between September 2020 and December 2022.
Among evaluable patients, 96% achieved minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status. Median duration of response was not reached.
Safety findings showed a low 2.4% and 7.1% rate of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and/or grade 3 or higher immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), respectively.
FELIX study participants were 18 years of age or older with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients underwent lymphodepletion with fludarabine as 4 x 30 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide at 2 x 500 mg/m2. Obe-cel was administered at a target dose of 410 x 106 CAR T cells as a split dose on days 1 and 10 based on pre-lymphodepletion bone marrow blast burden.
CAR T expansion was similar across the study cohorts, and CAR T persistence was ongoing in most responders at follow-up.
A particular benefit was observed in patients’ low leukemia burden, defined as morphological remission per investigator assessment (less than 5% bone marrow blasts without extramedullary disease) as measured at screening or at the start of lymphodepletion, prior to obe-cel infusion.
For example, of 10 evaluable patients with MRD at screening, nine achieved CR or Cri, and all 10 achieved MRD-negative status after infusion. Median duration of response was not reached; no grade 3 or higher CRS occurred; and one patient had grade 3 or higher ICANS. And in a subset of 27 evaluable patients in morphological remission at the time of lymphodepletion, 24 (89%) achieved CR/CRi, and 100% of MRD evaluable responders achieved MRD negative CR/CRi after infusion. In this subset, median duration of response was not reached, and no patients experienced grade 3 or higher CRS or ICANS.
Autolus Technologies announced in January 2024 that the FDA had accepted its Biologics License Application for obe-cel and noted the treatment had also been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA.
In June 2024, an additional update presented at the annual ASCO meeting showed that 12-month event-free survival was 50% and 43% with or without censoring for consolidative stem cell transplant or new therapies, respectively, and overall survival was 61% and 59%, respectively.
Ongoing CAR T-cell persistency and B-cell aplasia were associated with improved event-free survival without further consolidation after obe-cel infusion, the investigators reported, noting that consolidative stem cell transplant for those in MRD-negative remission did not improve event-free survival or overall survival at 12 months.
In a commentary, Jorge Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta, said the findings presented at ASCO suggest that obe-cel is “very promising and may [represent] a different strategy that decreases the toxicity for CAR T cells.”
The study was funded by Merck. Smith reports receiving grant funding from Merck. Jones reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Approval of the CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T) — which, according to Autolus, was specifically “designed to have a ‘fast-off’ kinetic” to minimize excessive activation of the programmed T cells and thereby increase T-cell persistence and reduce T-cell exhaustion — was based on efficacy and safety findings from the open-label, single-arm FELIX study.
Initial study findings were presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, and updated findings from a pooled analysis of FELIX phase 1b/2 data were presented at the 2023 American Society of Hematology conference.
The pooled analysis showed a complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi) rate of 77% and a CR rate of 57% at a median follow up of 11 months in 124 patients treated between September 2020 and December 2022.
Among evaluable patients, 96% achieved minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status. Median duration of response was not reached.
Safety findings showed a low 2.4% and 7.1% rate of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and/or grade 3 or higher immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), respectively.
FELIX study participants were 18 years of age or older with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients underwent lymphodepletion with fludarabine as 4 x 30 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide at 2 x 500 mg/m2. Obe-cel was administered at a target dose of 410 x 106 CAR T cells as a split dose on days 1 and 10 based on pre-lymphodepletion bone marrow blast burden.
CAR T expansion was similar across the study cohorts, and CAR T persistence was ongoing in most responders at follow-up.
A particular benefit was observed in patients’ low leukemia burden, defined as morphological remission per investigator assessment (less than 5% bone marrow blasts without extramedullary disease) as measured at screening or at the start of lymphodepletion, prior to obe-cel infusion.
For example, of 10 evaluable patients with MRD at screening, nine achieved CR or Cri, and all 10 achieved MRD-negative status after infusion. Median duration of response was not reached; no grade 3 or higher CRS occurred; and one patient had grade 3 or higher ICANS. And in a subset of 27 evaluable patients in morphological remission at the time of lymphodepletion, 24 (89%) achieved CR/CRi, and 100% of MRD evaluable responders achieved MRD negative CR/CRi after infusion. In this subset, median duration of response was not reached, and no patients experienced grade 3 or higher CRS or ICANS.
Autolus Technologies announced in January 2024 that the FDA had accepted its Biologics License Application for obe-cel and noted the treatment had also been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA.
In June 2024, an additional update presented at the annual ASCO meeting showed that 12-month event-free survival was 50% and 43% with or without censoring for consolidative stem cell transplant or new therapies, respectively, and overall survival was 61% and 59%, respectively.
Ongoing CAR T-cell persistency and B-cell aplasia were associated with improved event-free survival without further consolidation after obe-cel infusion, the investigators reported, noting that consolidative stem cell transplant for those in MRD-negative remission did not improve event-free survival or overall survival at 12 months.
In a commentary, Jorge Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta, said the findings presented at ASCO suggest that obe-cel is “very promising and may [represent] a different strategy that decreases the toxicity for CAR T cells.”
The study was funded by Merck. Smith reports receiving grant funding from Merck. Jones reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Approval of the CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T) — which, according to Autolus, was specifically “designed to have a ‘fast-off’ kinetic” to minimize excessive activation of the programmed T cells and thereby increase T-cell persistence and reduce T-cell exhaustion — was based on efficacy and safety findings from the open-label, single-arm FELIX study.
Initial study findings were presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, and updated findings from a pooled analysis of FELIX phase 1b/2 data were presented at the 2023 American Society of Hematology conference.
The pooled analysis showed a complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi) rate of 77% and a CR rate of 57% at a median follow up of 11 months in 124 patients treated between September 2020 and December 2022.
Among evaluable patients, 96% achieved minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status. Median duration of response was not reached.
Safety findings showed a low 2.4% and 7.1% rate of grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and/or grade 3 or higher immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), respectively.
FELIX study participants were 18 years of age or older with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients underwent lymphodepletion with fludarabine as 4 x 30 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide at 2 x 500 mg/m2. Obe-cel was administered at a target dose of 410 x 106 CAR T cells as a split dose on days 1 and 10 based on pre-lymphodepletion bone marrow blast burden.
CAR T expansion was similar across the study cohorts, and CAR T persistence was ongoing in most responders at follow-up.
A particular benefit was observed in patients’ low leukemia burden, defined as morphological remission per investigator assessment (less than 5% bone marrow blasts without extramedullary disease) as measured at screening or at the start of lymphodepletion, prior to obe-cel infusion.
For example, of 10 evaluable patients with MRD at screening, nine achieved CR or Cri, and all 10 achieved MRD-negative status after infusion. Median duration of response was not reached; no grade 3 or higher CRS occurred; and one patient had grade 3 or higher ICANS. And in a subset of 27 evaluable patients in morphological remission at the time of lymphodepletion, 24 (89%) achieved CR/CRi, and 100% of MRD evaluable responders achieved MRD negative CR/CRi after infusion. In this subset, median duration of response was not reached, and no patients experienced grade 3 or higher CRS or ICANS.
Autolus Technologies announced in January 2024 that the FDA had accepted its Biologics License Application for obe-cel and noted the treatment had also been granted Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA.
In June 2024, an additional update presented at the annual ASCO meeting showed that 12-month event-free survival was 50% and 43% with or without censoring for consolidative stem cell transplant or new therapies, respectively, and overall survival was 61% and 59%, respectively.
Ongoing CAR T-cell persistency and B-cell aplasia were associated with improved event-free survival without further consolidation after obe-cel infusion, the investigators reported, noting that consolidative stem cell transplant for those in MRD-negative remission did not improve event-free survival or overall survival at 12 months.
In a commentary, Jorge Cortes, MD, director of the Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta, said the findings presented at ASCO suggest that obe-cel is “very promising and may [represent] a different strategy that decreases the toxicity for CAR T cells.”
The study was funded by Merck. Smith reports receiving grant funding from Merck. Jones reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For Radiation ‘Downwinders,’ Cancer Compensation Is On Hold
As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.
In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.
“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure
No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?
It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.
Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.
Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:
“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”
In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.
In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.
Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds
In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.
Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.
“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”
The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps
Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.
They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.
In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”
Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues
A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.
Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.
In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.
Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)
The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.
Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West
On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”
With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”
Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”
Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.
In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.
“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure
No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?
It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.
Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.
Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:
“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”
In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.
In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.
Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds
In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.
Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.
“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”
The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps
Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.
They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.
In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”
Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues
A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.
Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.
In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.
Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)
The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.
Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West
On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”
With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”
Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”
Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.
In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.
“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure
No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?
It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.
Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.
Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:
“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”
In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.
In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.
Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds
In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.
Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.
“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”
The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps
Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.
They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.
In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”
Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues
A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.
Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.
In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.
Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)
The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.
Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West
On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”
With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”
Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”
Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Popular Weight Loss Drugs Now for Patients With Cancer?
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years.
Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.
Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression.
While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.
The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects.
The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.
“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.
Why GLP-1s in Cancer?
GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar.
These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer.
Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.
In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.
Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.
Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma.
But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.
Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population.
Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m2 (range, 23-50 kg/m2).
From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy.
In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer.
Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population.
“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.
It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.
Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.
However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound.
As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk).
These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.
Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said
Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions.
Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.
Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer.
“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”
The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer.
But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said.
Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.