User login
Survival benefit with nivolumab extends to 5 years in NSCLC
Across the two studies – CheckMate 017 and 057 – 854 patients were randomized 1:1 following progression on platinum therapy to either nivolumab at 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks until further progression or unacceptable toxicity. Previously reported overall survival (OS) outcomes favored nivolumab.
At a minimum follow-up of 5.4 years, 50 nivolumab-treated patients and 9 docetaxel-treated patients were still alive.
The 5-year OS rates were 13.4% in the nivolumab arm and 2.6% in the docetaxel arm. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 8% and 0%, respectively.
There were no new safety signals with nivolumab, and there was no evidence of select late-onset grade 3-4 adverse events.
According to the study authors, this analysis is the longest phase 3 follow-up to date of a PD-1 inhibitor in previously treated, advanced NSCLC, and it suggests that “long-term survival beyond 5 years may ... be possible in NSCLC.”
“The results indicate that some patients with NSCLC can have long-lasting benefit from checkpoint inhibitors. We have seen similar results in terms of long-term OS with pembrolizumab,” said investigator Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of thoracic medical oncology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
Dr. Borghaei said the question now is “how to identify the population that really benefits from these treatments. We think PD-L1–high [patients] have a better chance, [as do patients with] tumors that have a higher percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but there’s nothing concrete beyond that.”
No baseline clinical or tumor factors emerged to distinguish between long-and short-term survivors, but the 5-year OS rate was 18.3% among nivolumab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression at or above 1% versus 8% among patients with expression below 1%.
The optimal duration of nivolumab treatment beyond 1 year is also uncertain.
The median duration of therapy was 36.9 months in the 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab, and 36% of patients (18/50) were still on nivolumab at the 5-year mark.
The median duration of time off treatment was 41.9 months among patients who discontinued nivolumab. Five patients (10%) were off treatment with no subsequent therapy and had not progressed at 5 years, “suggesting benefit even for patients who stopped nivolumab treatment,” the researchers wrote.
They also found that nivolumab-treated patients who remained alive at 3 years appeared to stabilize and plateau thereafter, with early response suggesting better long-term outcomes. The majority of patients without disease progression at 2, 3, and 4 years, for instance, remained progression free at 5 years. Nearly one-third of patients who achieved an objective response with nivolumab – but none of the patients who responded to docetaxel – had ongoing responses at 5 years.
Similarly, nivolumab-treated patients without disease progression at 2 years and 3 years had an 82% and 93% chance of survival, respectively, and a 59.6% and 78.3% chance of remaining progression free at 5 years.
This research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Borghaei and coauthors disclosed numerous ties to the company, including employment.
Across the two studies – CheckMate 017 and 057 – 854 patients were randomized 1:1 following progression on platinum therapy to either nivolumab at 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks until further progression or unacceptable toxicity. Previously reported overall survival (OS) outcomes favored nivolumab.
At a minimum follow-up of 5.4 years, 50 nivolumab-treated patients and 9 docetaxel-treated patients were still alive.
The 5-year OS rates were 13.4% in the nivolumab arm and 2.6% in the docetaxel arm. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 8% and 0%, respectively.
There were no new safety signals with nivolumab, and there was no evidence of select late-onset grade 3-4 adverse events.
According to the study authors, this analysis is the longest phase 3 follow-up to date of a PD-1 inhibitor in previously treated, advanced NSCLC, and it suggests that “long-term survival beyond 5 years may ... be possible in NSCLC.”
“The results indicate that some patients with NSCLC can have long-lasting benefit from checkpoint inhibitors. We have seen similar results in terms of long-term OS with pembrolizumab,” said investigator Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of thoracic medical oncology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
Dr. Borghaei said the question now is “how to identify the population that really benefits from these treatments. We think PD-L1–high [patients] have a better chance, [as do patients with] tumors that have a higher percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but there’s nothing concrete beyond that.”
No baseline clinical or tumor factors emerged to distinguish between long-and short-term survivors, but the 5-year OS rate was 18.3% among nivolumab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression at or above 1% versus 8% among patients with expression below 1%.
The optimal duration of nivolumab treatment beyond 1 year is also uncertain.
The median duration of therapy was 36.9 months in the 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab, and 36% of patients (18/50) were still on nivolumab at the 5-year mark.
The median duration of time off treatment was 41.9 months among patients who discontinued nivolumab. Five patients (10%) were off treatment with no subsequent therapy and had not progressed at 5 years, “suggesting benefit even for patients who stopped nivolumab treatment,” the researchers wrote.
They also found that nivolumab-treated patients who remained alive at 3 years appeared to stabilize and plateau thereafter, with early response suggesting better long-term outcomes. The majority of patients without disease progression at 2, 3, and 4 years, for instance, remained progression free at 5 years. Nearly one-third of patients who achieved an objective response with nivolumab – but none of the patients who responded to docetaxel – had ongoing responses at 5 years.
Similarly, nivolumab-treated patients without disease progression at 2 years and 3 years had an 82% and 93% chance of survival, respectively, and a 59.6% and 78.3% chance of remaining progression free at 5 years.
This research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Borghaei and coauthors disclosed numerous ties to the company, including employment.
Across the two studies – CheckMate 017 and 057 – 854 patients were randomized 1:1 following progression on platinum therapy to either nivolumab at 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks or docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks until further progression or unacceptable toxicity. Previously reported overall survival (OS) outcomes favored nivolumab.
At a minimum follow-up of 5.4 years, 50 nivolumab-treated patients and 9 docetaxel-treated patients were still alive.
The 5-year OS rates were 13.4% in the nivolumab arm and 2.6% in the docetaxel arm. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 8% and 0%, respectively.
There were no new safety signals with nivolumab, and there was no evidence of select late-onset grade 3-4 adverse events.
According to the study authors, this analysis is the longest phase 3 follow-up to date of a PD-1 inhibitor in previously treated, advanced NSCLC, and it suggests that “long-term survival beyond 5 years may ... be possible in NSCLC.”
“The results indicate that some patients with NSCLC can have long-lasting benefit from checkpoint inhibitors. We have seen similar results in terms of long-term OS with pembrolizumab,” said investigator Hossein Borghaei, DO, chief of thoracic medical oncology at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.
Dr. Borghaei said the question now is “how to identify the population that really benefits from these treatments. We think PD-L1–high [patients] have a better chance, [as do patients with] tumors that have a higher percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but there’s nothing concrete beyond that.”
No baseline clinical or tumor factors emerged to distinguish between long-and short-term survivors, but the 5-year OS rate was 18.3% among nivolumab-treated patients with PD-L1 expression at or above 1% versus 8% among patients with expression below 1%.
The optimal duration of nivolumab treatment beyond 1 year is also uncertain.
The median duration of therapy was 36.9 months in the 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab, and 36% of patients (18/50) were still on nivolumab at the 5-year mark.
The median duration of time off treatment was 41.9 months among patients who discontinued nivolumab. Five patients (10%) were off treatment with no subsequent therapy and had not progressed at 5 years, “suggesting benefit even for patients who stopped nivolumab treatment,” the researchers wrote.
They also found that nivolumab-treated patients who remained alive at 3 years appeared to stabilize and plateau thereafter, with early response suggesting better long-term outcomes. The majority of patients without disease progression at 2, 3, and 4 years, for instance, remained progression free at 5 years. Nearly one-third of patients who achieved an objective response with nivolumab – but none of the patients who responded to docetaxel – had ongoing responses at 5 years.
Similarly, nivolumab-treated patients without disease progression at 2 years and 3 years had an 82% and 93% chance of survival, respectively, and a 59.6% and 78.3% chance of remaining progression free at 5 years.
This research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Borghaei and coauthors disclosed numerous ties to the company, including employment.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Tislelizumab bests docetaxel in NSCLC
The results were presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT039).
Tislelizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody engineered to minimize Fc-gamma receptor binding on macrophages, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential anti–PD-1 resistance, according to investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, of Shanghai (China) Pulmonary Hospital.
Tislelizumab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, the second-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and first-line treatment of advanced squamous NSCLC in China.
In patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease has progressed after initial platinum-based chemotherapy, anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapies have been shown to improve OS by 2-4 months versus docetaxel, Dr. Zhou said. A phase 1/2 study of second-line tislelizumab demonstrated antitumor activity in multiple advanced solid tumors, including NSCLC.
The phase 3 RATIONALE 303 study (NCT3358875) was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab, compared with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease had progressed during or after platinum-containing doublet chemotherapy.
Study details
RATIONALE 303 enrolled 805 patients who had received up to two prior lines of systemic therapy and had no known EGFR mutations or ALK fusions.
The patients’ median age was 61 years, about 77% were male, about 80% were Asian, and about 70% were current or former smokers. Roughly 46% of patients had squamous histology, and about 43% had PD-L1 expression of 25% or greater.
Patients were stratified according to histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), lines of prior therapy (second vs. third), and PD-L1 status (<25% vs. ≥25%).
Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive IV tislelizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 535) or IV docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (n = 270) until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression.
The dual primary endpoints were OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1 expression of 25% or higher.
Survival and safety
In the ITT population, the 1-year OS rate was 61.9% in the tislelizumab arm and 49.8% in the docetaxel arm. At 2 years, the OS rates were 39.4% and 25.0%, respectively.
The median OS was 17.2 months in the tislelizumab arm and 11.9 months in the docetaxel arm (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78; P < .0001).
In the PD-L1–high subgroup, the median OS was 19.1 months with tislelizumab and 11.9 months with docetaxel (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.71; P < .0001). The 1-year OS rates in this group were 67.5% and 49.1%, respectively, and the 2-year OS rates were 44.7% and 24.5%, respectively.
The OS benefit with tislelizumab was observed across nearly all subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted.
In the ITT population, benefits were seen with tislelizumab over docetaxel for progression-free survival (4.1 months vs. 2.6 months, P < .0001), objective response rate (21.9% vs. 7.1%, P < .0001), and median duration of response (13.5 months vs. 6.2 months, P < .0001).
The rate of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 73.0% in the tislelizumab arm and 93.8% in the docetaxel arm. Rates of grade 3 or higher TRAEs were 14.4% and 66.3%, respectively. Rates of TRAEs leading to permanent discontinuation of treatment were 6.0% and 9.7%, respectively, and rates of TRAEs leading to death were 1.5% and 1.6%, respectively.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia in the tislelizumab arm (28.5%) and alopecia in the docetaxel arm (47.3%). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia in the docetaxel arm (27.9% vs. 0.6% with tislelizumab).
‘Very important trial’
“RATIONALE 303 demonstrated that, as second- or third-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, tislelizumab was tolerable and prolonged overall survival by 5-7 months. It also improved progression-free survival and objective response rate versus docetaxel, regardless of histology or PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Zhou concluded.
Session moderator Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago called RATIONALE 303 a “very important trial.”
Citing the range of immunotherapies available for NSCLC, Dr. Garassino said, “We have a very crowded space in the treatment of NSCLC. ... It is difficult to do a direct comparison [of immunotherapy trials] because we know that populations can be different and other factors can play a role. In the near future, we have to understand if they are all the same and interchangeable or if they are different.”
RATIONALE 303 was funded by BeiGene. Dr. Zhou disclosed relationships with Lily China, Sanofi, Roche, and several other companies, not including BeiGene. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several other companies, not including BeiGene.
The results were presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT039).
Tislelizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody engineered to minimize Fc-gamma receptor binding on macrophages, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential anti–PD-1 resistance, according to investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, of Shanghai (China) Pulmonary Hospital.
Tislelizumab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, the second-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and first-line treatment of advanced squamous NSCLC in China.
In patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease has progressed after initial platinum-based chemotherapy, anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapies have been shown to improve OS by 2-4 months versus docetaxel, Dr. Zhou said. A phase 1/2 study of second-line tislelizumab demonstrated antitumor activity in multiple advanced solid tumors, including NSCLC.
The phase 3 RATIONALE 303 study (NCT3358875) was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab, compared with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease had progressed during or after platinum-containing doublet chemotherapy.
Study details
RATIONALE 303 enrolled 805 patients who had received up to two prior lines of systemic therapy and had no known EGFR mutations or ALK fusions.
The patients’ median age was 61 years, about 77% were male, about 80% were Asian, and about 70% were current or former smokers. Roughly 46% of patients had squamous histology, and about 43% had PD-L1 expression of 25% or greater.
Patients were stratified according to histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), lines of prior therapy (second vs. third), and PD-L1 status (<25% vs. ≥25%).
Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive IV tislelizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 535) or IV docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (n = 270) until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression.
The dual primary endpoints were OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1 expression of 25% or higher.
Survival and safety
In the ITT population, the 1-year OS rate was 61.9% in the tislelizumab arm and 49.8% in the docetaxel arm. At 2 years, the OS rates were 39.4% and 25.0%, respectively.
The median OS was 17.2 months in the tislelizumab arm and 11.9 months in the docetaxel arm (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78; P < .0001).
In the PD-L1–high subgroup, the median OS was 19.1 months with tislelizumab and 11.9 months with docetaxel (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.71; P < .0001). The 1-year OS rates in this group were 67.5% and 49.1%, respectively, and the 2-year OS rates were 44.7% and 24.5%, respectively.
The OS benefit with tislelizumab was observed across nearly all subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted.
In the ITT population, benefits were seen with tislelizumab over docetaxel for progression-free survival (4.1 months vs. 2.6 months, P < .0001), objective response rate (21.9% vs. 7.1%, P < .0001), and median duration of response (13.5 months vs. 6.2 months, P < .0001).
The rate of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 73.0% in the tislelizumab arm and 93.8% in the docetaxel arm. Rates of grade 3 or higher TRAEs were 14.4% and 66.3%, respectively. Rates of TRAEs leading to permanent discontinuation of treatment were 6.0% and 9.7%, respectively, and rates of TRAEs leading to death were 1.5% and 1.6%, respectively.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia in the tislelizumab arm (28.5%) and alopecia in the docetaxel arm (47.3%). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia in the docetaxel arm (27.9% vs. 0.6% with tislelizumab).
‘Very important trial’
“RATIONALE 303 demonstrated that, as second- or third-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, tislelizumab was tolerable and prolonged overall survival by 5-7 months. It also improved progression-free survival and objective response rate versus docetaxel, regardless of histology or PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Zhou concluded.
Session moderator Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago called RATIONALE 303 a “very important trial.”
Citing the range of immunotherapies available for NSCLC, Dr. Garassino said, “We have a very crowded space in the treatment of NSCLC. ... It is difficult to do a direct comparison [of immunotherapy trials] because we know that populations can be different and other factors can play a role. In the near future, we have to understand if they are all the same and interchangeable or if they are different.”
RATIONALE 303 was funded by BeiGene. Dr. Zhou disclosed relationships with Lily China, Sanofi, Roche, and several other companies, not including BeiGene. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several other companies, not including BeiGene.
The results were presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT039).
Tislelizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody engineered to minimize Fc-gamma receptor binding on macrophages, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential anti–PD-1 resistance, according to investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, of Shanghai (China) Pulmonary Hospital.
Tislelizumab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, the second-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and first-line treatment of advanced squamous NSCLC in China.
In patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease has progressed after initial platinum-based chemotherapy, anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapies have been shown to improve OS by 2-4 months versus docetaxel, Dr. Zhou said. A phase 1/2 study of second-line tislelizumab demonstrated antitumor activity in multiple advanced solid tumors, including NSCLC.
The phase 3 RATIONALE 303 study (NCT3358875) was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab, compared with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease had progressed during or after platinum-containing doublet chemotherapy.
Study details
RATIONALE 303 enrolled 805 patients who had received up to two prior lines of systemic therapy and had no known EGFR mutations or ALK fusions.
The patients’ median age was 61 years, about 77% were male, about 80% were Asian, and about 70% were current or former smokers. Roughly 46% of patients had squamous histology, and about 43% had PD-L1 expression of 25% or greater.
Patients were stratified according to histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), lines of prior therapy (second vs. third), and PD-L1 status (<25% vs. ≥25%).
Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive IV tislelizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 535) or IV docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (n = 270) until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression.
The dual primary endpoints were OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1 expression of 25% or higher.
Survival and safety
In the ITT population, the 1-year OS rate was 61.9% in the tislelizumab arm and 49.8% in the docetaxel arm. At 2 years, the OS rates were 39.4% and 25.0%, respectively.
The median OS was 17.2 months in the tislelizumab arm and 11.9 months in the docetaxel arm (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78; P < .0001).
In the PD-L1–high subgroup, the median OS was 19.1 months with tislelizumab and 11.9 months with docetaxel (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.71; P < .0001). The 1-year OS rates in this group were 67.5% and 49.1%, respectively, and the 2-year OS rates were 44.7% and 24.5%, respectively.
The OS benefit with tislelizumab was observed across nearly all subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted.
In the ITT population, benefits were seen with tislelizumab over docetaxel for progression-free survival (4.1 months vs. 2.6 months, P < .0001), objective response rate (21.9% vs. 7.1%, P < .0001), and median duration of response (13.5 months vs. 6.2 months, P < .0001).
The rate of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 73.0% in the tislelizumab arm and 93.8% in the docetaxel arm. Rates of grade 3 or higher TRAEs were 14.4% and 66.3%, respectively. Rates of TRAEs leading to permanent discontinuation of treatment were 6.0% and 9.7%, respectively, and rates of TRAEs leading to death were 1.5% and 1.6%, respectively.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia in the tislelizumab arm (28.5%) and alopecia in the docetaxel arm (47.3%). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia in the docetaxel arm (27.9% vs. 0.6% with tislelizumab).
‘Very important trial’
“RATIONALE 303 demonstrated that, as second- or third-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, tislelizumab was tolerable and prolonged overall survival by 5-7 months. It also improved progression-free survival and objective response rate versus docetaxel, regardless of histology or PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Zhou concluded.
Session moderator Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago called RATIONALE 303 a “very important trial.”
Citing the range of immunotherapies available for NSCLC, Dr. Garassino said, “We have a very crowded space in the treatment of NSCLC. ... It is difficult to do a direct comparison [of immunotherapy trials] because we know that populations can be different and other factors can play a role. In the near future, we have to understand if they are all the same and interchangeable or if they are different.”
RATIONALE 303 was funded by BeiGene. Dr. Zhou disclosed relationships with Lily China, Sanofi, Roche, and several other companies, not including BeiGene. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several other companies, not including BeiGene.
FROM AACR 2021
Leveraging the microbiome to enhance cancer treatment
Andrea Facciabene, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a preclinical study in which vancomycin enhanced the efficacy of radiotherapy against melanoma and lung cancer. Now, researchers are conducting a clinical trial to determine if vancomycin can have the same effect in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.
Dr. Facciabene reviewed this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Radiation Science and Medicine.
According to Dr. Facciabene, “gut microbiota” includes the more than 1,000 different strains of bacteria living in human intestines. He indicated that the average human has 10 times more bacteria than cells in the body and 150 times more genes in the gut microbiome than in the human genome.
In healthy individuals, the gut microbiota play a key role in intestinal function and digestive processes, modulation of hormones and vitamin secretion, energy extraction from food, and development and maintenance of a balanced immune system.
“Dysbiosis” is the term applied to a change in the composition, diversity, or metabolites of the microbiome from a healthy pattern to one associated with disease. Antibiotic therapy is a classic cause of dysbiosis, and dysbiosis has been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases.
The mechanisms by which the gut microbiome could influence systemic immunity is not known but is relevant to cancer therapy response. Augmenting the frequency and durability of response to immune-targeted treatments – potentially by manipulating the influence of gut microbiota on the immune system – could be highly impactful.
Gut microbiota and radiation-induced cell death
Immunogenic cell death – a process by which tumors die and release their intracellular molecular contents – is one of the mechanisms by which radiotherapy kills cancer cells.
Tumor cells succumbing to immunogenic cell death stimulate antigen presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, that engulf tumor antigens and cross-present them to CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes. This process culminates in the generation of a specific immune response capable of killing the malignant cells in the irradiated area, but it also impacts distant nonirradiated tumors – an abscopal effect.
Dr. Facciabene and colleagues hypothesized that alterations of the gut microbiota could have an impact on the effect of radiotherapy. To investigate this, they studied mouse models of melanoma.
The team allowed B16-OVA tumors to grow for 9-12 days, then delivered a single dose of radiotherapy (21 Gy) to one – but not all – tumors. Simultaneously with the delivery of radiotherapy, the investigators started some animals on oral vancomycin. The team chose vancomycin because its effects are localized and impact the gut microbiota directly, without any known systemic effects.
Results showed that vancomycin significantly augmented the impact of radiotherapy in the irradiated area and was associated with regression of remote tumors.
The effects of the combination treatment on tumor volume were significantly greater than the effects of either treatment alone. Since manipulation of the gut microbiome potentiated radiotherapy effects both locally and distantly, the investigators concluded that immunogenic cell death may be involved in both the local and abscopal effects of radiotherapy.
When the experiment was repeated with a lung tumor model, similar findings were observed.
Involvement of cytotoxic T cells and interferon-gamma
Dr. Facciabene and colleagues found that the irradiated and unirradiated B16 OVA melanoma tumors treated with the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination were infiltrated by CD3+ and CD8+ T cells.
The investigators selectively depleted CD8+ T cells by pretreating the mice with an anti-CD8 monoclonal antibody. Depletion of CD8+ cells prior to administering radiotherapy plus vancomycin abrogated the antitumor effects of the combination treatment, demonstrating that the CD8+ T cells were required.
To characterize the antigen specificity of the tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues used OVA MHC class 1 tetramer. Tumors from mice treated with vancomycin alone, radiotherapy alone, or the combination were dissected. Individual dendritic cells were assayed for OVA tetramer by flow cytometry.
The investigators found that tumors from mice treated with radiotherapy plus vancomycin had a significantly higher number of OVA-specific CD8+ T cells, in comparison with untreated tumors or tumors treated with either vancomycin alone or radiotherapy alone. Since antibody that impaired recognition of MHC class I peptides by T cells ablated the effect, it was clear that antigen recognition was vital.
Interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) is known to play a critical role in both differentiation and effector functions of CD8+ cytolytic T cells in the antitumor immune response. To determine whether IFN-gamma is involved in the antitumor effects of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination, the investigators measured intratumoral expression of IFN-gamma in the tumors 5 days after radiotherapy.
IFN-gamma messenger RNA expression levels were significantly elevated in the combination treatment group when compared with either treatment alone. In B16-OVA melanoma–challenged knockout mice, the enhancement of the radiotherapy effects by vancomycin was ablated.
The investigators concluded that vancomycin remodels the tumor microenvironment and increases the functionality of tumor-infiltrating, tumor-specific, CD8+ T cells. Furthermore, IFN-gamma is required to augment the radiotherapy-induced immune effect against the tumor.
Potential biochemical mediators of immune effects
The gut microbiota aid host digestion and generate a large repertoire of metabolites after defermentation of fiber. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) constitute the major products of bacterial fermentation.
Acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid represent 95% of total SCFAs present in the intestine. SCFAs are known to directly modulate cytokine production and dendritic cell function.
In their study, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues focused on butyric acid. Using mass spectroscopy, they demonstrated that vancomycin treatment reduces butyrate concentrations in tumor and tumor-draining lymph nodes by eradicating the major families of SCFA-producing Clostridia species.
To test whether supplementing butyrate could influence the synergy of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination in vivo, the investigators added sodium butyrate to the mice’s drinking water when starting vancomycin treatment. The team then challenged the mice with B16-OVA tumors and treated them with radiotherapy.
In agreement with the group’s prior findings, vancomycin enhanced the tumor-inhibitory effects of radiotherapy, but dietary butyrate inhibited the benefit. The investigators found a significant decrease in the population of B16-OVA–presenting dendritic cells in the lymph nodes of mice receiving the supplemental butyrate.
Dr. Facciabene said these findings were supported by a recent publication. The authors observed that butyrate inhibited type I IFN expression in dendritic cells and radiotherapy-induced, tumor-specific cytotoxic T-cell immune responses without directly protecting tumor cells from the cytotoxic effects of radiotherapy.
Wide-ranging implications
Overall, Dr. Facciabene’s research has shown that:
- Vancomycin significantly enhances the tumor inhibitory effect of targeted radiation, including abscopal effects.
- The synergistic effects are dependent upon IFN-gamma and CD8+ cells.
- Depletion of some gut microbiome species increases antigen presentation by dendritic cells. This is mediated by SCFAs produced by certain bacterial families.
- There are promising new strategies to improve responses to radiotherapy, including targeting gut microbiota.
A clinical trial (NCT03546829) of vancomycin plus stereotactic body radiation in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer has been launched to investigate these findings further. Early data analysis has shown a significant impact of vancomycin on several species of gut microbiota, according to Dr. Facciabene.
Revolutionary results from immune-targeted therapy in the recent past have highlighted the important role the immune system can play in fighting cancer. Still, up to one-third of cancer patients fail to respond to overtly immune-targeted therapy.
The ability to inhibit cancer cells from evading immune surveillance by using new adjuvants – including those acting on non-traditional targets like gut microbiota – could herald the next major advances in cancer therapy. During his presentation, Dr. Facciabene gave participants an enticing hint of what could be coming for cancer patients in the years ahead.
Dr. Facciabene reported having no relevant disclosures.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Andrea Facciabene, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a preclinical study in which vancomycin enhanced the efficacy of radiotherapy against melanoma and lung cancer. Now, researchers are conducting a clinical trial to determine if vancomycin can have the same effect in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.
Dr. Facciabene reviewed this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Radiation Science and Medicine.
According to Dr. Facciabene, “gut microbiota” includes the more than 1,000 different strains of bacteria living in human intestines. He indicated that the average human has 10 times more bacteria than cells in the body and 150 times more genes in the gut microbiome than in the human genome.
In healthy individuals, the gut microbiota play a key role in intestinal function and digestive processes, modulation of hormones and vitamin secretion, energy extraction from food, and development and maintenance of a balanced immune system.
“Dysbiosis” is the term applied to a change in the composition, diversity, or metabolites of the microbiome from a healthy pattern to one associated with disease. Antibiotic therapy is a classic cause of dysbiosis, and dysbiosis has been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases.
The mechanisms by which the gut microbiome could influence systemic immunity is not known but is relevant to cancer therapy response. Augmenting the frequency and durability of response to immune-targeted treatments – potentially by manipulating the influence of gut microbiota on the immune system – could be highly impactful.
Gut microbiota and radiation-induced cell death
Immunogenic cell death – a process by which tumors die and release their intracellular molecular contents – is one of the mechanisms by which radiotherapy kills cancer cells.
Tumor cells succumbing to immunogenic cell death stimulate antigen presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, that engulf tumor antigens and cross-present them to CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes. This process culminates in the generation of a specific immune response capable of killing the malignant cells in the irradiated area, but it also impacts distant nonirradiated tumors – an abscopal effect.
Dr. Facciabene and colleagues hypothesized that alterations of the gut microbiota could have an impact on the effect of radiotherapy. To investigate this, they studied mouse models of melanoma.
The team allowed B16-OVA tumors to grow for 9-12 days, then delivered a single dose of radiotherapy (21 Gy) to one – but not all – tumors. Simultaneously with the delivery of radiotherapy, the investigators started some animals on oral vancomycin. The team chose vancomycin because its effects are localized and impact the gut microbiota directly, without any known systemic effects.
Results showed that vancomycin significantly augmented the impact of radiotherapy in the irradiated area and was associated with regression of remote tumors.
The effects of the combination treatment on tumor volume were significantly greater than the effects of either treatment alone. Since manipulation of the gut microbiome potentiated radiotherapy effects both locally and distantly, the investigators concluded that immunogenic cell death may be involved in both the local and abscopal effects of radiotherapy.
When the experiment was repeated with a lung tumor model, similar findings were observed.
Involvement of cytotoxic T cells and interferon-gamma
Dr. Facciabene and colleagues found that the irradiated and unirradiated B16 OVA melanoma tumors treated with the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination were infiltrated by CD3+ and CD8+ T cells.
The investigators selectively depleted CD8+ T cells by pretreating the mice with an anti-CD8 monoclonal antibody. Depletion of CD8+ cells prior to administering radiotherapy plus vancomycin abrogated the antitumor effects of the combination treatment, demonstrating that the CD8+ T cells were required.
To characterize the antigen specificity of the tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues used OVA MHC class 1 tetramer. Tumors from mice treated with vancomycin alone, radiotherapy alone, or the combination were dissected. Individual dendritic cells were assayed for OVA tetramer by flow cytometry.
The investigators found that tumors from mice treated with radiotherapy plus vancomycin had a significantly higher number of OVA-specific CD8+ T cells, in comparison with untreated tumors or tumors treated with either vancomycin alone or radiotherapy alone. Since antibody that impaired recognition of MHC class I peptides by T cells ablated the effect, it was clear that antigen recognition was vital.
Interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) is known to play a critical role in both differentiation and effector functions of CD8+ cytolytic T cells in the antitumor immune response. To determine whether IFN-gamma is involved in the antitumor effects of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination, the investigators measured intratumoral expression of IFN-gamma in the tumors 5 days after radiotherapy.
IFN-gamma messenger RNA expression levels were significantly elevated in the combination treatment group when compared with either treatment alone. In B16-OVA melanoma–challenged knockout mice, the enhancement of the radiotherapy effects by vancomycin was ablated.
The investigators concluded that vancomycin remodels the tumor microenvironment and increases the functionality of tumor-infiltrating, tumor-specific, CD8+ T cells. Furthermore, IFN-gamma is required to augment the radiotherapy-induced immune effect against the tumor.
Potential biochemical mediators of immune effects
The gut microbiota aid host digestion and generate a large repertoire of metabolites after defermentation of fiber. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) constitute the major products of bacterial fermentation.
Acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid represent 95% of total SCFAs present in the intestine. SCFAs are known to directly modulate cytokine production and dendritic cell function.
In their study, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues focused on butyric acid. Using mass spectroscopy, they demonstrated that vancomycin treatment reduces butyrate concentrations in tumor and tumor-draining lymph nodes by eradicating the major families of SCFA-producing Clostridia species.
To test whether supplementing butyrate could influence the synergy of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination in vivo, the investigators added sodium butyrate to the mice’s drinking water when starting vancomycin treatment. The team then challenged the mice with B16-OVA tumors and treated them with radiotherapy.
In agreement with the group’s prior findings, vancomycin enhanced the tumor-inhibitory effects of radiotherapy, but dietary butyrate inhibited the benefit. The investigators found a significant decrease in the population of B16-OVA–presenting dendritic cells in the lymph nodes of mice receiving the supplemental butyrate.
Dr. Facciabene said these findings were supported by a recent publication. The authors observed that butyrate inhibited type I IFN expression in dendritic cells and radiotherapy-induced, tumor-specific cytotoxic T-cell immune responses without directly protecting tumor cells from the cytotoxic effects of radiotherapy.
Wide-ranging implications
Overall, Dr. Facciabene’s research has shown that:
- Vancomycin significantly enhances the tumor inhibitory effect of targeted radiation, including abscopal effects.
- The synergistic effects are dependent upon IFN-gamma and CD8+ cells.
- Depletion of some gut microbiome species increases antigen presentation by dendritic cells. This is mediated by SCFAs produced by certain bacterial families.
- There are promising new strategies to improve responses to radiotherapy, including targeting gut microbiota.
A clinical trial (NCT03546829) of vancomycin plus stereotactic body radiation in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer has been launched to investigate these findings further. Early data analysis has shown a significant impact of vancomycin on several species of gut microbiota, according to Dr. Facciabene.
Revolutionary results from immune-targeted therapy in the recent past have highlighted the important role the immune system can play in fighting cancer. Still, up to one-third of cancer patients fail to respond to overtly immune-targeted therapy.
The ability to inhibit cancer cells from evading immune surveillance by using new adjuvants – including those acting on non-traditional targets like gut microbiota – could herald the next major advances in cancer therapy. During his presentation, Dr. Facciabene gave participants an enticing hint of what could be coming for cancer patients in the years ahead.
Dr. Facciabene reported having no relevant disclosures.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Andrea Facciabene, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a preclinical study in which vancomycin enhanced the efficacy of radiotherapy against melanoma and lung cancer. Now, researchers are conducting a clinical trial to determine if vancomycin can have the same effect in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.
Dr. Facciabene reviewed this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Radiation Science and Medicine.
According to Dr. Facciabene, “gut microbiota” includes the more than 1,000 different strains of bacteria living in human intestines. He indicated that the average human has 10 times more bacteria than cells in the body and 150 times more genes in the gut microbiome than in the human genome.
In healthy individuals, the gut microbiota play a key role in intestinal function and digestive processes, modulation of hormones and vitamin secretion, energy extraction from food, and development and maintenance of a balanced immune system.
“Dysbiosis” is the term applied to a change in the composition, diversity, or metabolites of the microbiome from a healthy pattern to one associated with disease. Antibiotic therapy is a classic cause of dysbiosis, and dysbiosis has been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases.
The mechanisms by which the gut microbiome could influence systemic immunity is not known but is relevant to cancer therapy response. Augmenting the frequency and durability of response to immune-targeted treatments – potentially by manipulating the influence of gut microbiota on the immune system – could be highly impactful.
Gut microbiota and radiation-induced cell death
Immunogenic cell death – a process by which tumors die and release their intracellular molecular contents – is one of the mechanisms by which radiotherapy kills cancer cells.
Tumor cells succumbing to immunogenic cell death stimulate antigen presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, that engulf tumor antigens and cross-present them to CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes. This process culminates in the generation of a specific immune response capable of killing the malignant cells in the irradiated area, but it also impacts distant nonirradiated tumors – an abscopal effect.
Dr. Facciabene and colleagues hypothesized that alterations of the gut microbiota could have an impact on the effect of radiotherapy. To investigate this, they studied mouse models of melanoma.
The team allowed B16-OVA tumors to grow for 9-12 days, then delivered a single dose of radiotherapy (21 Gy) to one – but not all – tumors. Simultaneously with the delivery of radiotherapy, the investigators started some animals on oral vancomycin. The team chose vancomycin because its effects are localized and impact the gut microbiota directly, without any known systemic effects.
Results showed that vancomycin significantly augmented the impact of radiotherapy in the irradiated area and was associated with regression of remote tumors.
The effects of the combination treatment on tumor volume were significantly greater than the effects of either treatment alone. Since manipulation of the gut microbiome potentiated radiotherapy effects both locally and distantly, the investigators concluded that immunogenic cell death may be involved in both the local and abscopal effects of radiotherapy.
When the experiment was repeated with a lung tumor model, similar findings were observed.
Involvement of cytotoxic T cells and interferon-gamma
Dr. Facciabene and colleagues found that the irradiated and unirradiated B16 OVA melanoma tumors treated with the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination were infiltrated by CD3+ and CD8+ T cells.
The investigators selectively depleted CD8+ T cells by pretreating the mice with an anti-CD8 monoclonal antibody. Depletion of CD8+ cells prior to administering radiotherapy plus vancomycin abrogated the antitumor effects of the combination treatment, demonstrating that the CD8+ T cells were required.
To characterize the antigen specificity of the tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues used OVA MHC class 1 tetramer. Tumors from mice treated with vancomycin alone, radiotherapy alone, or the combination were dissected. Individual dendritic cells were assayed for OVA tetramer by flow cytometry.
The investigators found that tumors from mice treated with radiotherapy plus vancomycin had a significantly higher number of OVA-specific CD8+ T cells, in comparison with untreated tumors or tumors treated with either vancomycin alone or radiotherapy alone. Since antibody that impaired recognition of MHC class I peptides by T cells ablated the effect, it was clear that antigen recognition was vital.
Interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) is known to play a critical role in both differentiation and effector functions of CD8+ cytolytic T cells in the antitumor immune response. To determine whether IFN-gamma is involved in the antitumor effects of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination, the investigators measured intratumoral expression of IFN-gamma in the tumors 5 days after radiotherapy.
IFN-gamma messenger RNA expression levels were significantly elevated in the combination treatment group when compared with either treatment alone. In B16-OVA melanoma–challenged knockout mice, the enhancement of the radiotherapy effects by vancomycin was ablated.
The investigators concluded that vancomycin remodels the tumor microenvironment and increases the functionality of tumor-infiltrating, tumor-specific, CD8+ T cells. Furthermore, IFN-gamma is required to augment the radiotherapy-induced immune effect against the tumor.
Potential biochemical mediators of immune effects
The gut microbiota aid host digestion and generate a large repertoire of metabolites after defermentation of fiber. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) constitute the major products of bacterial fermentation.
Acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid represent 95% of total SCFAs present in the intestine. SCFAs are known to directly modulate cytokine production and dendritic cell function.
In their study, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues focused on butyric acid. Using mass spectroscopy, they demonstrated that vancomycin treatment reduces butyrate concentrations in tumor and tumor-draining lymph nodes by eradicating the major families of SCFA-producing Clostridia species.
To test whether supplementing butyrate could influence the synergy of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination in vivo, the investigators added sodium butyrate to the mice’s drinking water when starting vancomycin treatment. The team then challenged the mice with B16-OVA tumors and treated them with radiotherapy.
In agreement with the group’s prior findings, vancomycin enhanced the tumor-inhibitory effects of radiotherapy, but dietary butyrate inhibited the benefit. The investigators found a significant decrease in the population of B16-OVA–presenting dendritic cells in the lymph nodes of mice receiving the supplemental butyrate.
Dr. Facciabene said these findings were supported by a recent publication. The authors observed that butyrate inhibited type I IFN expression in dendritic cells and radiotherapy-induced, tumor-specific cytotoxic T-cell immune responses without directly protecting tumor cells from the cytotoxic effects of radiotherapy.
Wide-ranging implications
Overall, Dr. Facciabene’s research has shown that:
- Vancomycin significantly enhances the tumor inhibitory effect of targeted radiation, including abscopal effects.
- The synergistic effects are dependent upon IFN-gamma and CD8+ cells.
- Depletion of some gut microbiome species increases antigen presentation by dendritic cells. This is mediated by SCFAs produced by certain bacterial families.
- There are promising new strategies to improve responses to radiotherapy, including targeting gut microbiota.
A clinical trial (NCT03546829) of vancomycin plus stereotactic body radiation in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer has been launched to investigate these findings further. Early data analysis has shown a significant impact of vancomycin on several species of gut microbiota, according to Dr. Facciabene.
Revolutionary results from immune-targeted therapy in the recent past have highlighted the important role the immune system can play in fighting cancer. Still, up to one-third of cancer patients fail to respond to overtly immune-targeted therapy.
The ability to inhibit cancer cells from evading immune surveillance by using new adjuvants – including those acting on non-traditional targets like gut microbiota – could herald the next major advances in cancer therapy. During his presentation, Dr. Facciabene gave participants an enticing hint of what could be coming for cancer patients in the years ahead.
Dr. Facciabene reported having no relevant disclosures.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
FROM AACR: RADIATION SCIENCE AND MEDICINE
New data dim hopes for ‘triumph of drug discovery’
Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.
KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.
Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.
The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.
Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.
“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.
“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.
Inactivating KRAS
The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.
But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.
Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
Multiple mutations, histologic transformations
Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.
The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.
The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.
One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.
The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.
In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.
“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
Does duration of response matter?
In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.
“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”
Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.
“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.
Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.
KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.
Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.
The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.
Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.
“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.
“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.
Inactivating KRAS
The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.
But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.
Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
Multiple mutations, histologic transformations
Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.
The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.
The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.
One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.
The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.
In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.
“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
Does duration of response matter?
In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.
“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”
Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.
“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.
Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.
KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.
Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.
The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.
Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.
“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.
“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.
Inactivating KRAS
The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.
But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.
Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
Multiple mutations, histologic transformations
Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.
The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.
The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.
One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.
The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.
In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.
“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
Does duration of response matter?
In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.
“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”
Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.
“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.
Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR 2021
Personalized cancer vaccine shows early promise across tumor types
The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.
At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.
Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.
“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”
With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
Creating a personalized vaccine
The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.
Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.
OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
Vaccine administration
The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.
“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .
“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity
PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.
Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.
“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.
Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.
Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.
Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
Survival and subsequent therapy
At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.
Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.
Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.
“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.
Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.
The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.
The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.
At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.
Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.
“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”
With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
Creating a personalized vaccine
The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.
Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.
OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
Vaccine administration
The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.
“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .
“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity
PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.
Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.
“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.
Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.
Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.
Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
Survival and subsequent therapy
At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.
Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.
Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.
“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.
Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.
The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.
The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.
At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.
Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.
“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”
With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
Creating a personalized vaccine
The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.
Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.
OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
Vaccine administration
The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.
“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .
“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity
PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.
Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.
“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.
Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.
Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.
Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
Survival and subsequent therapy
At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.
Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.
Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.
“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.
Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.
The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.
FROM AACR 2021
Rankings of most common cancers to shift over next 20 years
The next 20 years will see a big shift in cancer type rankings, researchers predict.
At the moment, the most common cancers in the United States are breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and melanoma.
the study authors predicted. Breast cancer will remain the top cancer to be diagnosed, lung cancer will drop from second to third, and colorectal cancer will remain at fourth.
These predicted rankings of cancer types by their total number of annual cases were published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
The authors also rank cancer type by mortality. Currently, most cancer deaths are caused by lung cancer, followed by colorectal, pancreatic, and breast. By 2040, the most notable change in cancer deaths is that liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, currently at sixth, will jump up to third.
Two decades from now, the ranking in terms of cancer deaths will be lung, pancreatic, liver and intrahepatic bile duct, and colorectal.
“Our findings reflect the shifting dynamics of cancer screening and treatment,” lead author Lola Rahib, PhD, a pancreatic cancer scientist at Cancer Commons, the advocacy nonprofit, commented in a press statement.
The new analysis used population-growth projections (based on 2010 U.S. Census data) and current population-based cancer incidence and death rates (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2014-2016) to calculate the changes in incidences and deaths to the year 2040.
The projected, estimated numbers are not ironclad, the researchers acknowledged.
“Our projections assume that the observed rates and trends [from recent years] don’t change over time,” Dr. Rahib said in an interview, but she pointed out that change may indeed happen.
“Any long-term projections should be considered with a grain of salt,” said Kim Miller, MPH, a surveillance research scientist at the American Cancer Society, who was approached for comment.
Dr. Miller explained that “cancer trends can sometimes rapidly change within a few years.” Projections just 2-4 years ahead are “extremely difficult” and those 20 years ahead are even more so, she added in an interview.
“We’re encouraged to see the projected decreases in deaths from lung, colorectal, and breast cancer in the coming years,” said coauthor Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA, chief science officer at the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. “It’s time to shift focus to some of the less commonly diagnosed cancers with the lowest survival rates, like pancreatic and liver cancer.”
Difference in opinion on prostate cancer
The huge fall in the incidence of prostate cancer that the authors predict will come about as a result of changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–screening recommendations over the last 15 years, they suggested.
“The most recent change in 2018 recommends that men aged 55-69 can make their own decisions regarding screening, but previous changes recommended against PSA screening,” said Dr. Rahib.
“These changes in screening guidelines have influenced the number of diagnoses of prostate cancer in recent years and will continue to do so to 2040,” Dr. Rahib commented.
Dr. Miller casts doubt on this prediction.
Using data through 2017, “we have seen that the patterns in prostate cancer incidence are already shifting from the steep declines we saw in the early 2010s,” she said. “I would use caution when interpreting the overall trends for prostate, because this cancer in particular is dramatically affected by changes in recommendations for screening with the PSA test.”
Screening has also influenced colorectal cancer incidence, the authors pointed out, saying that the uptake of colorectal cancer screening is associated with a decrease in the number of colorectal cancers and deaths out to 2040, as a result of effectiveness of screening.
For breast cancer, the authors highlighted the fact that, although the number of breast cancers will continue to increase, the number of breast cancer deaths will decrease. That ongoing trend is most likely attributable to increased screening and advancements in treatment.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, Cancer Commons and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. The study authors and Dr. Miller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The next 20 years will see a big shift in cancer type rankings, researchers predict.
At the moment, the most common cancers in the United States are breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and melanoma.
the study authors predicted. Breast cancer will remain the top cancer to be diagnosed, lung cancer will drop from second to third, and colorectal cancer will remain at fourth.
These predicted rankings of cancer types by their total number of annual cases were published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
The authors also rank cancer type by mortality. Currently, most cancer deaths are caused by lung cancer, followed by colorectal, pancreatic, and breast. By 2040, the most notable change in cancer deaths is that liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, currently at sixth, will jump up to third.
Two decades from now, the ranking in terms of cancer deaths will be lung, pancreatic, liver and intrahepatic bile duct, and colorectal.
“Our findings reflect the shifting dynamics of cancer screening and treatment,” lead author Lola Rahib, PhD, a pancreatic cancer scientist at Cancer Commons, the advocacy nonprofit, commented in a press statement.
The new analysis used population-growth projections (based on 2010 U.S. Census data) and current population-based cancer incidence and death rates (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2014-2016) to calculate the changes in incidences and deaths to the year 2040.
The projected, estimated numbers are not ironclad, the researchers acknowledged.
“Our projections assume that the observed rates and trends [from recent years] don’t change over time,” Dr. Rahib said in an interview, but she pointed out that change may indeed happen.
“Any long-term projections should be considered with a grain of salt,” said Kim Miller, MPH, a surveillance research scientist at the American Cancer Society, who was approached for comment.
Dr. Miller explained that “cancer trends can sometimes rapidly change within a few years.” Projections just 2-4 years ahead are “extremely difficult” and those 20 years ahead are even more so, she added in an interview.
“We’re encouraged to see the projected decreases in deaths from lung, colorectal, and breast cancer in the coming years,” said coauthor Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA, chief science officer at the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. “It’s time to shift focus to some of the less commonly diagnosed cancers with the lowest survival rates, like pancreatic and liver cancer.”
Difference in opinion on prostate cancer
The huge fall in the incidence of prostate cancer that the authors predict will come about as a result of changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–screening recommendations over the last 15 years, they suggested.
“The most recent change in 2018 recommends that men aged 55-69 can make their own decisions regarding screening, but previous changes recommended against PSA screening,” said Dr. Rahib.
“These changes in screening guidelines have influenced the number of diagnoses of prostate cancer in recent years and will continue to do so to 2040,” Dr. Rahib commented.
Dr. Miller casts doubt on this prediction.
Using data through 2017, “we have seen that the patterns in prostate cancer incidence are already shifting from the steep declines we saw in the early 2010s,” she said. “I would use caution when interpreting the overall trends for prostate, because this cancer in particular is dramatically affected by changes in recommendations for screening with the PSA test.”
Screening has also influenced colorectal cancer incidence, the authors pointed out, saying that the uptake of colorectal cancer screening is associated with a decrease in the number of colorectal cancers and deaths out to 2040, as a result of effectiveness of screening.
For breast cancer, the authors highlighted the fact that, although the number of breast cancers will continue to increase, the number of breast cancer deaths will decrease. That ongoing trend is most likely attributable to increased screening and advancements in treatment.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, Cancer Commons and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. The study authors and Dr. Miller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The next 20 years will see a big shift in cancer type rankings, researchers predict.
At the moment, the most common cancers in the United States are breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and melanoma.
the study authors predicted. Breast cancer will remain the top cancer to be diagnosed, lung cancer will drop from second to third, and colorectal cancer will remain at fourth.
These predicted rankings of cancer types by their total number of annual cases were published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
The authors also rank cancer type by mortality. Currently, most cancer deaths are caused by lung cancer, followed by colorectal, pancreatic, and breast. By 2040, the most notable change in cancer deaths is that liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, currently at sixth, will jump up to third.
Two decades from now, the ranking in terms of cancer deaths will be lung, pancreatic, liver and intrahepatic bile duct, and colorectal.
“Our findings reflect the shifting dynamics of cancer screening and treatment,” lead author Lola Rahib, PhD, a pancreatic cancer scientist at Cancer Commons, the advocacy nonprofit, commented in a press statement.
The new analysis used population-growth projections (based on 2010 U.S. Census data) and current population-based cancer incidence and death rates (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2014-2016) to calculate the changes in incidences and deaths to the year 2040.
The projected, estimated numbers are not ironclad, the researchers acknowledged.
“Our projections assume that the observed rates and trends [from recent years] don’t change over time,” Dr. Rahib said in an interview, but she pointed out that change may indeed happen.
“Any long-term projections should be considered with a grain of salt,” said Kim Miller, MPH, a surveillance research scientist at the American Cancer Society, who was approached for comment.
Dr. Miller explained that “cancer trends can sometimes rapidly change within a few years.” Projections just 2-4 years ahead are “extremely difficult” and those 20 years ahead are even more so, she added in an interview.
“We’re encouraged to see the projected decreases in deaths from lung, colorectal, and breast cancer in the coming years,” said coauthor Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA, chief science officer at the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. “It’s time to shift focus to some of the less commonly diagnosed cancers with the lowest survival rates, like pancreatic and liver cancer.”
Difference in opinion on prostate cancer
The huge fall in the incidence of prostate cancer that the authors predict will come about as a result of changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–screening recommendations over the last 15 years, they suggested.
“The most recent change in 2018 recommends that men aged 55-69 can make their own decisions regarding screening, but previous changes recommended against PSA screening,” said Dr. Rahib.
“These changes in screening guidelines have influenced the number of diagnoses of prostate cancer in recent years and will continue to do so to 2040,” Dr. Rahib commented.
Dr. Miller casts doubt on this prediction.
Using data through 2017, “we have seen that the patterns in prostate cancer incidence are already shifting from the steep declines we saw in the early 2010s,” she said. “I would use caution when interpreting the overall trends for prostate, because this cancer in particular is dramatically affected by changes in recommendations for screening with the PSA test.”
Screening has also influenced colorectal cancer incidence, the authors pointed out, saying that the uptake of colorectal cancer screening is associated with a decrease in the number of colorectal cancers and deaths out to 2040, as a result of effectiveness of screening.
For breast cancer, the authors highlighted the fact that, although the number of breast cancers will continue to increase, the number of breast cancer deaths will decrease. That ongoing trend is most likely attributable to increased screening and advancements in treatment.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, Cancer Commons and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. The study authors and Dr. Miller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Presurgical nivo/chemo boosts pCR rates in NSCLC
Patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often receive treatment before they undergo surgery. For such patients who achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR), the chances of survival are improved.
However, only a small percentage of patients achieve a pCR with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone.
Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting boosts the success rate.
Results from the CheckMate 816 trial show that pCR rates improved from 2.2% with chemotherapy alone to 24% when nivolumab was added.
This difference translated into an odds ratio for achieving a pCR with nivolumab plus chemotherapy of 13.94 (P < .0001), reported Patrick M. Forde, MBBCh, from the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore.
This primary endpoint, pCR, was defined as complete regression in both the primary tumor and lymph nodes.
“The magnitude of pCR with nivo plus chemo was similar in stage 1B, II, and stage IIIA disease, as well as in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies,” he added.
Dr. Forde presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT003).
The higher pCR rates were seen regardless of PD-L1 expression or tumor mutational burden, Dr. Forde said.
The benefit was also seen when the researchers considered only those patients who subsequently underwent resection (pCR rate of 30.5% with the combination versus 3.2% with chemotherapy alone) and when only the primary tumor was considered (pCR rate of 25.7% vs. 2.8%, respectively).
Change in trial design
Invited discussant Jhanelle Gray, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, pointed out that the CheckMate 816 trial originally included an experimental arm with double immunotherapy – ipilimumab plus nivolumab – added onto chemotherapy.
However, this third arm was closed after other trials reported promising results from adding a single immunotherapy onto chemotherapy. For example, results of the single-arm NADIM phase 2 study showed a 77.1% progression-free survival rate at 24 months with the combination of nivolumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin, and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial showed that adding pembrolizumab to a standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy regimen nearly doubled response rates among patients with previously untreated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC (although there was no advantage in overall survival).
“Even with the change in trial design, patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms, and the study met its primary endpoint in the intent-to-treat population,” she said.
Dr. Gray also commented that the choice of pCR as a primary endpoint is “intriguing, and the question remains if it represents a valid surrogate endpoint for survival.”
She noted that a meta-analysis of 32 neoadjuvant chemotherapy-based studies in NSCLC, presented at the 2020 European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting, showed clear associations of pCR and major pathologic response to both overall survival and event-free survival.
“As these findings were established in a backdrop of chemotherapy, work is needed to confirm these findings in the setting of immunotherapy in particular, as at times, radiographic findings do not correlate with histological findings,” Dr. Gray said.
CheckMate 816 particulars
CheckMate 816 was conducted in 358 patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC with resectable stage IB tumors of at least 4 cm up to stage IIIA tumors, good performance status, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.
Patients were randomly assigned on an equal basis to receive either nivolumab at 360 mg plus chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles or chemotherapy alone.
Surgery was planned within 6 week after neoadjuvant therapy. Patients could receive (at the investigator’s discretion) adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy but no further immunotherapy during follow-up.
In this analysis, patients who did not undergo surgery or for whom evaluable tissue samples were not available were counted among those whose conditions did not respond to therapy.
Major pathologic response rate (≤10% residual viable tumor cells in the primary lung tumor and sampled lymph nodes), which was a secondary endpoint, was also significantly better, at 36.9% versus 8.9%, translating into an OR of 5.70 (95% confidence interval, 3.16-10.26).
In a subset of patients, the investigators assessed clearance of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from day 1 of the first cycle to day 1 of the third cycle using a highly sensitive tumor-informed approach. They found that ctDNA was notably higher with the combination than with chemotherapy alone and that ctDNA clearance correlated with pCR.
Safety similar
“Remarkably, safety was quite similar across the two treatment arms,” Dr. Forde said.
The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy did not appear to increase either treatment-related adverse events or adverse events of any cause. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the combination arm versus 44% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 10% of patients in each arm.
Two patients in the nivolumab-chemotherapy arm died from surgically related adverse events (one pulmonary embolism and one aortic rupture). These events were deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.
The investigators are continuing to assess event-free survival and overall survival.
CheckMate 816 is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Forde has received grants/research support and advisory fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others. Dr. Gray has consulted for and has received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often receive treatment before they undergo surgery. For such patients who achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR), the chances of survival are improved.
However, only a small percentage of patients achieve a pCR with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone.
Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting boosts the success rate.
Results from the CheckMate 816 trial show that pCR rates improved from 2.2% with chemotherapy alone to 24% when nivolumab was added.
This difference translated into an odds ratio for achieving a pCR with nivolumab plus chemotherapy of 13.94 (P < .0001), reported Patrick M. Forde, MBBCh, from the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore.
This primary endpoint, pCR, was defined as complete regression in both the primary tumor and lymph nodes.
“The magnitude of pCR with nivo plus chemo was similar in stage 1B, II, and stage IIIA disease, as well as in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies,” he added.
Dr. Forde presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT003).
The higher pCR rates were seen regardless of PD-L1 expression or tumor mutational burden, Dr. Forde said.
The benefit was also seen when the researchers considered only those patients who subsequently underwent resection (pCR rate of 30.5% with the combination versus 3.2% with chemotherapy alone) and when only the primary tumor was considered (pCR rate of 25.7% vs. 2.8%, respectively).
Change in trial design
Invited discussant Jhanelle Gray, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, pointed out that the CheckMate 816 trial originally included an experimental arm with double immunotherapy – ipilimumab plus nivolumab – added onto chemotherapy.
However, this third arm was closed after other trials reported promising results from adding a single immunotherapy onto chemotherapy. For example, results of the single-arm NADIM phase 2 study showed a 77.1% progression-free survival rate at 24 months with the combination of nivolumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin, and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial showed that adding pembrolizumab to a standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy regimen nearly doubled response rates among patients with previously untreated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC (although there was no advantage in overall survival).
“Even with the change in trial design, patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms, and the study met its primary endpoint in the intent-to-treat population,” she said.
Dr. Gray also commented that the choice of pCR as a primary endpoint is “intriguing, and the question remains if it represents a valid surrogate endpoint for survival.”
She noted that a meta-analysis of 32 neoadjuvant chemotherapy-based studies in NSCLC, presented at the 2020 European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting, showed clear associations of pCR and major pathologic response to both overall survival and event-free survival.
“As these findings were established in a backdrop of chemotherapy, work is needed to confirm these findings in the setting of immunotherapy in particular, as at times, radiographic findings do not correlate with histological findings,” Dr. Gray said.
CheckMate 816 particulars
CheckMate 816 was conducted in 358 patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC with resectable stage IB tumors of at least 4 cm up to stage IIIA tumors, good performance status, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.
Patients were randomly assigned on an equal basis to receive either nivolumab at 360 mg plus chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles or chemotherapy alone.
Surgery was planned within 6 week after neoadjuvant therapy. Patients could receive (at the investigator’s discretion) adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy but no further immunotherapy during follow-up.
In this analysis, patients who did not undergo surgery or for whom evaluable tissue samples were not available were counted among those whose conditions did not respond to therapy.
Major pathologic response rate (≤10% residual viable tumor cells in the primary lung tumor and sampled lymph nodes), which was a secondary endpoint, was also significantly better, at 36.9% versus 8.9%, translating into an OR of 5.70 (95% confidence interval, 3.16-10.26).
In a subset of patients, the investigators assessed clearance of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from day 1 of the first cycle to day 1 of the third cycle using a highly sensitive tumor-informed approach. They found that ctDNA was notably higher with the combination than with chemotherapy alone and that ctDNA clearance correlated with pCR.
Safety similar
“Remarkably, safety was quite similar across the two treatment arms,” Dr. Forde said.
The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy did not appear to increase either treatment-related adverse events or adverse events of any cause. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the combination arm versus 44% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 10% of patients in each arm.
Two patients in the nivolumab-chemotherapy arm died from surgically related adverse events (one pulmonary embolism and one aortic rupture). These events were deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.
The investigators are continuing to assess event-free survival and overall survival.
CheckMate 816 is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Forde has received grants/research support and advisory fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others. Dr. Gray has consulted for and has received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often receive treatment before they undergo surgery. For such patients who achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR), the chances of survival are improved.
However, only a small percentage of patients achieve a pCR with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone.
Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab to platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting boosts the success rate.
Results from the CheckMate 816 trial show that pCR rates improved from 2.2% with chemotherapy alone to 24% when nivolumab was added.
This difference translated into an odds ratio for achieving a pCR with nivolumab plus chemotherapy of 13.94 (P < .0001), reported Patrick M. Forde, MBBCh, from the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore.
This primary endpoint, pCR, was defined as complete regression in both the primary tumor and lymph nodes.
“The magnitude of pCR with nivo plus chemo was similar in stage 1B, II, and stage IIIA disease, as well as in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies,” he added.
Dr. Forde presented the new data at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT003).
The higher pCR rates were seen regardless of PD-L1 expression or tumor mutational burden, Dr. Forde said.
The benefit was also seen when the researchers considered only those patients who subsequently underwent resection (pCR rate of 30.5% with the combination versus 3.2% with chemotherapy alone) and when only the primary tumor was considered (pCR rate of 25.7% vs. 2.8%, respectively).
Change in trial design
Invited discussant Jhanelle Gray, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, pointed out that the CheckMate 816 trial originally included an experimental arm with double immunotherapy – ipilimumab plus nivolumab – added onto chemotherapy.
However, this third arm was closed after other trials reported promising results from adding a single immunotherapy onto chemotherapy. For example, results of the single-arm NADIM phase 2 study showed a 77.1% progression-free survival rate at 24 months with the combination of nivolumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin, and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial showed that adding pembrolizumab to a standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy regimen nearly doubled response rates among patients with previously untreated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC (although there was no advantage in overall survival).
“Even with the change in trial design, patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms, and the study met its primary endpoint in the intent-to-treat population,” she said.
Dr. Gray also commented that the choice of pCR as a primary endpoint is “intriguing, and the question remains if it represents a valid surrogate endpoint for survival.”
She noted that a meta-analysis of 32 neoadjuvant chemotherapy-based studies in NSCLC, presented at the 2020 European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting, showed clear associations of pCR and major pathologic response to both overall survival and event-free survival.
“As these findings were established in a backdrop of chemotherapy, work is needed to confirm these findings in the setting of immunotherapy in particular, as at times, radiographic findings do not correlate with histological findings,” Dr. Gray said.
CheckMate 816 particulars
CheckMate 816 was conducted in 358 patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC with resectable stage IB tumors of at least 4 cm up to stage IIIA tumors, good performance status, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.
Patients were randomly assigned on an equal basis to receive either nivolumab at 360 mg plus chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles or chemotherapy alone.
Surgery was planned within 6 week after neoadjuvant therapy. Patients could receive (at the investigator’s discretion) adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy but no further immunotherapy during follow-up.
In this analysis, patients who did not undergo surgery or for whom evaluable tissue samples were not available were counted among those whose conditions did not respond to therapy.
Major pathologic response rate (≤10% residual viable tumor cells in the primary lung tumor and sampled lymph nodes), which was a secondary endpoint, was also significantly better, at 36.9% versus 8.9%, translating into an OR of 5.70 (95% confidence interval, 3.16-10.26).
In a subset of patients, the investigators assessed clearance of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from day 1 of the first cycle to day 1 of the third cycle using a highly sensitive tumor-informed approach. They found that ctDNA was notably higher with the combination than with chemotherapy alone and that ctDNA clearance correlated with pCR.
Safety similar
“Remarkably, safety was quite similar across the two treatment arms,” Dr. Forde said.
The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy did not appear to increase either treatment-related adverse events or adverse events of any cause. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the combination arm versus 44% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.
Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 10% of patients in each arm.
Two patients in the nivolumab-chemotherapy arm died from surgically related adverse events (one pulmonary embolism and one aortic rupture). These events were deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.
The investigators are continuing to assess event-free survival and overall survival.
CheckMate 816 is funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical. Dr. Forde has received grants/research support and advisory fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others. Dr. Gray has consulted for and has received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR 2021
Steroid-refractory pneumonitis from ICIs: Experience at major centers
Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.
The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
The Johns Hopkins experience
Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.
Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.
Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.
Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.
Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.
The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.
Overall, clinically relevant findings were:
- Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
- Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
- Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
- Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.
The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience
Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.
Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.
Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.
The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).
A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.
Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.
The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.
In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.
Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.
Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.
Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.
Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.
Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.
The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
Lessons for clinicians
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.
Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.
This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.
The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.
Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.
Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.
Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.
Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.
Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.
The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.
The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.
The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
The Johns Hopkins experience
Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.
Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.
Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.
Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.
Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.
The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.
Overall, clinically relevant findings were:
- Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
- Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
- Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
- Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.
The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience
Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.
Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.
Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.
The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).
A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.
Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.
The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.
In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.
Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.
Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.
Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.
Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.
Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.
The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
Lessons for clinicians
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.
Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.
This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.
The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.
Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.
Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.
Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.
Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.
Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.
The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.
The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.
The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
The Johns Hopkins experience
Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.
Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.
Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.
Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.
Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.
The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.
Overall, clinically relevant findings were:
- Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
- Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
- Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
- Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.
The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience
Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.
Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.
Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.
The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).
A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.
Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.
The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.
In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.
Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.
Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.
Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.
Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.
Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.
The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
Lessons for clinicians
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.
Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.
This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.
The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.
Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.
Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.
Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.
Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.
Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.
The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.
The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Increased cancer risk from night shift due to gene dysregulation?
Working night shifts has been associated with an increased risk for certain cancers, as well as other health disorders. Indeed, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified night shift work as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
But why night shift should elevate the risk for cancer has been unclear.
A new study shows that a simulated night shift schedule significantly altered the normal circadian rhythmicity of genes that are involved in cancer hallmark pathways. It also found that this circadian misalignment caused circadian dysregulation of genes involved in key DNA repair pathways.
“Taken together, these findings suggest that night shift schedules throw off the timing of expression of cancer-related genes in a way that reduces the effectiveness of the body’s DNA repair processes when they are most needed,” said co-corresponding author Jason McDermott, a computational scientist with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s biological sciences division in Richland, Wash.
The study was published online in the Journal of Pineal Research.
Study conducted among volunteers
The study was carried out among healthy volunteers who were subjected to simulated night shift or day shift schedules.
The cohort comprised 14 adults between the ages of 22 and 34 years who had normal nighttime sleep schedules. They were randomly assigned (seven in each group) to a simulated day shift schedule that involved 3 days of daytime wakefulness (6 a.m.-10 p.m.), or a simulated night shift schedule involving 3 days of nighttime wakefulness (6 p.m.-10 a.m.).
After the 3 days of simulated shift work, all participants were then kept in a constant routine protocol (used to study humans’ internally generated biological rhythms independent of any external influences). As part of the protocol, they were kept awake for 24 hours in a semi-reclined posture under laboratory conditions with constant light exposure and room temperature and evenly distributed food intake (hourly isocaloric snacks).
Blood samples were collected at 3-hour intervals and used for leukocyte transcriptome analysis and DNA damage assessment.
The authors found that the circadian expression of canonical clock genes was substantially altered by the simulated night shift schedule vs. the day shift schedule. Four genes (CRY1, CRY2, PER2, and NR1D2) lost their normal day-shift rhythmicity following the night shift schedule, and NPAS2 gene expression was not rhythmic during the day shift but exhibited circadian rhythmicity in the simulated night shift condition. Three other genes (NR1D1, PER3, and DBP) were significantly rhythmic during both shifts.
The team also looked at the effect of night shift on circadian rhythmicity in cancer hallmark genes, using a panel of 726 genes. The analysis showed that:
- 257 (35.4%) were rhythmic after at least one of the two simulated shift work conditions.
- 113 (15.6%) were rhythmic in day shift only.
- 96 (13.2%) were rhythmic during night shift only.
- 48 (6.6%) were rhythmic during both shifts.
A subset of 10 (1.4%) genes exhibited a significant phase advance (3.7 to 8.3 hours) or phase delay (2.8 to 7.0 hours) during the night shift vs. the day shift.
Thus, the authors concluded, shift work caused significant disturbances in the rhythmicity of gene expression in cancer hallmark pathways.
Findings also showed that night shift work increases endogenous and exogenous DNA damage. Endogenous DNA damage was generally higher after the night shift compared to the day shift, and across the 24-hour constant routine the percentage of cells with BRCA1 and g H2AX foci was significantly higher for night shift.
Next steps
The team said that the next step is to conduct the same experiment with real-world shift workers who have been consistently on day or night shifts for many years to determine whether in night workers the unrepaired DNA damage builds up over time, which could ultimately increase the risk for cancer.
If what happens in real-world shift workers is consistent with the current findings, this work could eventually be used to develop prevention strategies and drugs that could address the mistiming of DNA repair processes, they suggested.
“Night shift workers face considerable health disparities, ranging from increased risks of metabolic and cardiovascular disease to mental health disorders and cancer,” co-senior author Hans Van Dongen, PhD, a professor at Washington State University in Pullman and director of the WSU Sleep and Performance Research Center, Spokane, said in a statement. “It is high time that we find diagnosis and treatment solutions for this underserved group of essential workers so that the medical community can address their unique health challenges.”
The study was supported by start-up funds from Washington State University and a Center for Human Health and the Environment grant from North Carolina State University, and in part by the United States Army Medical Research and Development Command, the National Institutes of Health, CDMRP (Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs) Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program award, and the BRAVE investment.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Working night shifts has been associated with an increased risk for certain cancers, as well as other health disorders. Indeed, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified night shift work as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
But why night shift should elevate the risk for cancer has been unclear.
A new study shows that a simulated night shift schedule significantly altered the normal circadian rhythmicity of genes that are involved in cancer hallmark pathways. It also found that this circadian misalignment caused circadian dysregulation of genes involved in key DNA repair pathways.
“Taken together, these findings suggest that night shift schedules throw off the timing of expression of cancer-related genes in a way that reduces the effectiveness of the body’s DNA repair processes when they are most needed,” said co-corresponding author Jason McDermott, a computational scientist with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s biological sciences division in Richland, Wash.
The study was published online in the Journal of Pineal Research.
Study conducted among volunteers
The study was carried out among healthy volunteers who were subjected to simulated night shift or day shift schedules.
The cohort comprised 14 adults between the ages of 22 and 34 years who had normal nighttime sleep schedules. They were randomly assigned (seven in each group) to a simulated day shift schedule that involved 3 days of daytime wakefulness (6 a.m.-10 p.m.), or a simulated night shift schedule involving 3 days of nighttime wakefulness (6 p.m.-10 a.m.).
After the 3 days of simulated shift work, all participants were then kept in a constant routine protocol (used to study humans’ internally generated biological rhythms independent of any external influences). As part of the protocol, they were kept awake for 24 hours in a semi-reclined posture under laboratory conditions with constant light exposure and room temperature and evenly distributed food intake (hourly isocaloric snacks).
Blood samples were collected at 3-hour intervals and used for leukocyte transcriptome analysis and DNA damage assessment.
The authors found that the circadian expression of canonical clock genes was substantially altered by the simulated night shift schedule vs. the day shift schedule. Four genes (CRY1, CRY2, PER2, and NR1D2) lost their normal day-shift rhythmicity following the night shift schedule, and NPAS2 gene expression was not rhythmic during the day shift but exhibited circadian rhythmicity in the simulated night shift condition. Three other genes (NR1D1, PER3, and DBP) were significantly rhythmic during both shifts.
The team also looked at the effect of night shift on circadian rhythmicity in cancer hallmark genes, using a panel of 726 genes. The analysis showed that:
- 257 (35.4%) were rhythmic after at least one of the two simulated shift work conditions.
- 113 (15.6%) were rhythmic in day shift only.
- 96 (13.2%) were rhythmic during night shift only.
- 48 (6.6%) were rhythmic during both shifts.
A subset of 10 (1.4%) genes exhibited a significant phase advance (3.7 to 8.3 hours) or phase delay (2.8 to 7.0 hours) during the night shift vs. the day shift.
Thus, the authors concluded, shift work caused significant disturbances in the rhythmicity of gene expression in cancer hallmark pathways.
Findings also showed that night shift work increases endogenous and exogenous DNA damage. Endogenous DNA damage was generally higher after the night shift compared to the day shift, and across the 24-hour constant routine the percentage of cells with BRCA1 and g H2AX foci was significantly higher for night shift.
Next steps
The team said that the next step is to conduct the same experiment with real-world shift workers who have been consistently on day or night shifts for many years to determine whether in night workers the unrepaired DNA damage builds up over time, which could ultimately increase the risk for cancer.
If what happens in real-world shift workers is consistent with the current findings, this work could eventually be used to develop prevention strategies and drugs that could address the mistiming of DNA repair processes, they suggested.
“Night shift workers face considerable health disparities, ranging from increased risks of metabolic and cardiovascular disease to mental health disorders and cancer,” co-senior author Hans Van Dongen, PhD, a professor at Washington State University in Pullman and director of the WSU Sleep and Performance Research Center, Spokane, said in a statement. “It is high time that we find diagnosis and treatment solutions for this underserved group of essential workers so that the medical community can address their unique health challenges.”
The study was supported by start-up funds from Washington State University and a Center for Human Health and the Environment grant from North Carolina State University, and in part by the United States Army Medical Research and Development Command, the National Institutes of Health, CDMRP (Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs) Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program award, and the BRAVE investment.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Working night shifts has been associated with an increased risk for certain cancers, as well as other health disorders. Indeed, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified night shift work as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
But why night shift should elevate the risk for cancer has been unclear.
A new study shows that a simulated night shift schedule significantly altered the normal circadian rhythmicity of genes that are involved in cancer hallmark pathways. It also found that this circadian misalignment caused circadian dysregulation of genes involved in key DNA repair pathways.
“Taken together, these findings suggest that night shift schedules throw off the timing of expression of cancer-related genes in a way that reduces the effectiveness of the body’s DNA repair processes when they are most needed,” said co-corresponding author Jason McDermott, a computational scientist with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s biological sciences division in Richland, Wash.
The study was published online in the Journal of Pineal Research.
Study conducted among volunteers
The study was carried out among healthy volunteers who were subjected to simulated night shift or day shift schedules.
The cohort comprised 14 adults between the ages of 22 and 34 years who had normal nighttime sleep schedules. They were randomly assigned (seven in each group) to a simulated day shift schedule that involved 3 days of daytime wakefulness (6 a.m.-10 p.m.), or a simulated night shift schedule involving 3 days of nighttime wakefulness (6 p.m.-10 a.m.).
After the 3 days of simulated shift work, all participants were then kept in a constant routine protocol (used to study humans’ internally generated biological rhythms independent of any external influences). As part of the protocol, they were kept awake for 24 hours in a semi-reclined posture under laboratory conditions with constant light exposure and room temperature and evenly distributed food intake (hourly isocaloric snacks).
Blood samples were collected at 3-hour intervals and used for leukocyte transcriptome analysis and DNA damage assessment.
The authors found that the circadian expression of canonical clock genes was substantially altered by the simulated night shift schedule vs. the day shift schedule. Four genes (CRY1, CRY2, PER2, and NR1D2) lost their normal day-shift rhythmicity following the night shift schedule, and NPAS2 gene expression was not rhythmic during the day shift but exhibited circadian rhythmicity in the simulated night shift condition. Three other genes (NR1D1, PER3, and DBP) were significantly rhythmic during both shifts.
The team also looked at the effect of night shift on circadian rhythmicity in cancer hallmark genes, using a panel of 726 genes. The analysis showed that:
- 257 (35.4%) were rhythmic after at least one of the two simulated shift work conditions.
- 113 (15.6%) were rhythmic in day shift only.
- 96 (13.2%) were rhythmic during night shift only.
- 48 (6.6%) were rhythmic during both shifts.
A subset of 10 (1.4%) genes exhibited a significant phase advance (3.7 to 8.3 hours) or phase delay (2.8 to 7.0 hours) during the night shift vs. the day shift.
Thus, the authors concluded, shift work caused significant disturbances in the rhythmicity of gene expression in cancer hallmark pathways.
Findings also showed that night shift work increases endogenous and exogenous DNA damage. Endogenous DNA damage was generally higher after the night shift compared to the day shift, and across the 24-hour constant routine the percentage of cells with BRCA1 and g H2AX foci was significantly higher for night shift.
Next steps
The team said that the next step is to conduct the same experiment with real-world shift workers who have been consistently on day or night shifts for many years to determine whether in night workers the unrepaired DNA damage builds up over time, which could ultimately increase the risk for cancer.
If what happens in real-world shift workers is consistent with the current findings, this work could eventually be used to develop prevention strategies and drugs that could address the mistiming of DNA repair processes, they suggested.
“Night shift workers face considerable health disparities, ranging from increased risks of metabolic and cardiovascular disease to mental health disorders and cancer,” co-senior author Hans Van Dongen, PhD, a professor at Washington State University in Pullman and director of the WSU Sleep and Performance Research Center, Spokane, said in a statement. “It is high time that we find diagnosis and treatment solutions for this underserved group of essential workers so that the medical community can address their unique health challenges.”
The study was supported by start-up funds from Washington State University and a Center for Human Health and the Environment grant from North Carolina State University, and in part by the United States Army Medical Research and Development Command, the National Institutes of Health, CDMRP (Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs) Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program award, and the BRAVE investment.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer screening stopped by pandemic: Repercussions to come?
Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.
Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.
“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.
She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).
In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.
“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.
A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.
In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.
In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).
Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.
The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.
There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.
“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.
In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.
By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.
Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.
After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.
The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.
The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.
His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.
In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.
Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.
Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.
“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”
He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.
In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.
“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.
She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.
Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.
Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.
“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.
Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.
Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.
“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”
In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.
Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.
Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”
In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”
“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”
Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.
Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.
“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.
She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).
In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.
“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.
A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.
In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.
In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).
Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.
The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.
There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.
“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.
In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.
By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.
Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.
After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.
The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.
The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.
His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.
In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.
Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.
Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.
“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”
He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.
In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.
“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.
She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.
Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.
Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.
“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.
Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.
Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.
“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”
In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.
Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.
Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”
In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”
“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”
Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.
Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.
“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.
She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).
In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.
“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.
A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.
In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.
In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).
Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.
The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.
There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.
“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.
In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.
By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.
Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.
After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.
The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.
The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.
His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.
In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.
Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.
Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.
“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”
He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.
In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.
“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.
She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.
Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.
Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.
“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.
Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.
Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.
“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”
In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.
Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.
Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”
In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”
“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”
Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.