Lung Cancer

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Canceled appointments, postponed surgeries, and delayed cancer diagnoses – all are a recipe for exhaustion for oncologists around the world, struggling to reach and treat their patients during the pandemic. Physicians and their teams felt the pain as COVID-19 took its initial march around the globe.

“We saw the distress of people with cancer who could no longer get to anyone on the phone. Their medical visit was usually canceled. Their radiotherapy session was postponed or modified, and chemotherapy postponed,” says Axel Kahn, MD, chairman of the board of directors of La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (National League Against Cancer). “In the vast majority of cases, cancer treatment can be postponed or readjusted, without affecting the patient’s chances of survival, but there has been a lot of anxiety because the patients do not know that.”

The stay-at-home factor was one that played out across many months during the first wave.

“I believe that the ‘stay-home’ message that we transmitted was rigorously followed by patients who should have come to the emergency room much earlier and who, therefore, were admitted with a much more deteriorated general condition than in non-COVID-19 times,” says Benjamín Domingo Arrué, MD, from the department of medical oncology at Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe in Valencia, Spain.

And in Brazil, some of the impact from the initial hit of COVID-19 on oncology is only now being felt, according to Laura Testa, MD, head of breast medical oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo.

“We are starting to see a lot of cancer cases that didn’t show up at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they are arriving to us already in advanced stages,” she said. “These patients need hospital care. If the situation worsens and goes back to what we saw at the peak of the curve, I fear the public system won’t be able to treat properly the oncology patients that need hospital care and the patients with cancer who also have COVID-19.”

But even as health care worker fatigue and concerns linger, oncologists say that what they have learned in the last 6 months has helped them prepare as COVID-19 cases increase and a second global wave kicks up.
 

Lessons from the first wave

In the United States, COVID-19 hit different regions at different times and to different degrees. One of the areas hit first was Seattle.

“We jumped on top of this, we were evidence based, we put things in place very, very quickly,” said Julie Gralow, MD, professor at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.

“We did a really good job keeping COVID out of our cancer centers,” Dr. Gralow said. “We learned how to be super safe, and to keep symptomatic people out of the building, and to limit the extra people they could bring with them. It’s all about the number of contacts you have.”

The story was different, though, for oncologists in several other countries, and sometimes it varied immensely within each nation.

“We treated fewer patients with cancer during the first wave,” says Dirk Arnold, MD, medical director of the Asklepios Tumor Center Hamburg (Germany), in an interview. “In part, this was because staff were quarantined and because we had a completely different infrastructure in all of the hospitals. But also fewer patients with cancer came to the clinic at all. A lot of resources were directed toward COVID-19.” 

In Spain, telemedicine helped keep up with visits, but other areas felt the effect of COVID-19 patient loads.

“At least in the oncology department of our center, we have practically maintained 100% of visits, mostly by telephone,” says Dr. Arrué, “but the reality is that our country has not yet been prepared for telemedicine.”

Laura Mezquita, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, describes a more dramatic situation: “We have seen how some of our patients, especially with metastatic disease, have been dismissed for intensive care and life-support treatments, as well as specific treatments against COVID-19 (tocilizumab, remdesivir, etc.) due to the general health collapse of the former wave,” she said. She adds that specific oncologic populations, such as those with thoracic tumors, have been more affected.
 

Distress among oncologists 

Many oncologists are still feeling stressed and fatigued after the first wave, just as a second string of outbreaks is on its way. 

A survey presented at last month’s ESMO 2020 Congress found that, in July-August, moral distress was reported by one-third of the oncologists who responded, and more than half reported a feeling of exhaustion. 

“The tiredness and team exhaustion is noticeable,” said Dr. Arnold. “We recently had a task force discussion about what will happen when we have a second wave and how the department and our services will adapt. It was clear that those who were at the very front in the first wave had only a limited desire to do that again in the second wave.”

Another concern: COVID-19’s effect on staffing levels. 

“We have a population of young caregivers who are affected by the COVID-19 disease with an absenteeism rate that is quite unprecedented,” said Sophie Beaupère, general delegate of Unicancer since January.

She said that, in general, the absenteeism rate in the cancer centers averages 5%-6%, depending on the year. But that rate is now skyrocketing.
 

Stop-start cycle for surgery

As caregivers quarantined around the world, more than 10% of patients with cancer had treatment canceled or delayed during the first wave of the pandemic, according to another survey from ESMO, involving 109 oncologists from 18 countries.

Difficulties were reported for surgeries by 34% of the centers, but also difficulties with delivering chemotherapy (22% of centers), radiotherapy (13.7%), and therapy with checkpoint inhibitors (9.1%), monoclonal antibodies (9%), and oral targeted therapy (3.7%).

Stopping surgery is a real concern in France, noted Dr. Kahn, the National League Against Cancer chair. He says that in regions that were badly hit by COVID-19, “it was not possible to have access to the operating room for people who absolutely needed surgery; for example, patients with lung cancer that was still operable. Most of the recovery rooms were mobilized for resuscitation.”

There may be some solutions, suggested Thierry Breton, director general of the National Institute of Cancer in France. “We are getting prepared, with the health ministry, for a possible increase in hospital tension, which would lead to a situation where we would have to reschedule operations. Nationally, regionally, and locally, we are seeing how we can resume and prioritize surgeries that have not been done.”
 

Delays in cancer diagnosis

While COVID-19 affected treatment, many oncologists say the major impact of the first wave was a delay in diagnosing cancer. Some of this was a result of the suspension of cancer screening programs, but there was also fear among the general public about visiting clinics and hospitals during a pandemic.

“We didn’t do so well with cancer during the first wave here in the U.K.,” said Karol Sikora, PhD, MBBChir, professor of cancer medicine and founding dean at the University of Buckingham Medical School, London. “Cancer diagnostic pathways virtually stalled partly because patients didn’t seek help, but getting scans and biopsies was also very difficult. Even patients referred urgently under the ‘2-weeks-wait’ rule were turned down.” 

In France, “the delay in diagnosis is indisputable,” said Dr. Kahn. “About 50% of the cancer diagnoses one would expect during this period were missed.” 

“I am worried that there remains a major traffic jam that has not been caught up with, and, in the meantime, the health crisis is worsening,” he added.  

In Seattle, Dr. Gralow said the first COVID-19 wave had little impact on treatment for breast cancer, but it was in screening for breast cancer “where things really got messed up.”

“Even though we’ve been fully ramped up again,” she said, concerns remain. To ensure that screening mammography is maintained, “we have spaced out the visits to keep our waiting rooms less populated, with a longer time between using the machine so we can clean it. To do this, we have extended operating hours and are now opening on Saturday.

“So we’re actually at 100% of our capacity, but I’m really nervous, though, that a lot of people put off their screening mammogram and aren’t going to come in and get it.

“Not only did people get the message to stay home and not do nonessential things, but I think a lot of people lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs,” she said, and without health insurance, they are not covered for cancer screening.
 

Looking ahead, with a plan

Many oncologists agree that access to care can and must be improved – and there were some positive moves.

“Some regimens changed during the first months of the pandemic, and I don’t see them going back to the way they were anytime soon,” said Dr. Testa. “The changes/adaptations that were made to minimize the chance of SARS-CoV-2 infection are still in place and will go on for a while. In this context, telemedicine helped a lot. The pandemic forced the stakeholders to step up and put it in place in March. And now it’s here to stay.”

The experience gained in the last several months has driven preparation for the next wave.

“We are not going to see the disorganization that we saw during the first wave,” said Florence Joly, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre François Baclesse in Caen, France. “The difference between now and earlier this year is that COVID diagnostic tests are available. That was one of the problems in the first wave. We had no way to diagnose.”

On the East Coast of the United States, medical oncologist Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, is also optimistic: “I think we’re at a place where we can manage.”

“I believe if there was going to be a new wave of COVID-19 cases we would be: better psychologically prepared and better organized,” said Dr. Aggarwal, assistant professor of medicine in the hematology-oncology division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “We already have experience with all of the tools, we have telemedicine available, we have screening protocols available, we have testing, we are already universally masking, everyone’s hand-washing, so I do think that means we would be okay.” 

Dr. Arnold agreed that “we are much better prepared than for the first wave, but … we have immense tasks in the area of patient management, the digitization of patient care, the clear allocation of resources when there is a second or third wave. In many areas of preparation, I believe, unfortunately, we are not as well positioned as we had actually hoped.” 

The first wave of COVID hit cancer services in the United Kingdom particularly hard: One modeling study suggested that delays in cancer referrals will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost.

“Cancer services are working at near normal levels now, but they are still fragile and could be severely compromised again if the NHS [National Health Service] gets flooded by COVID patients,” said Dr. Sikora.

The second wave may be different. “Although the number of infections has increased, the hospitalizations have only risen a little. Let’s see what happens,” he said in an interview. Since then, however, infections have continued to rise, and there has been an increase in hospitalizations. New social distancing measures in the United Kingdom were put into place on Oct. 12, with the aim of protecting the NHS from overload.

Dr. Arrué describes it this way: “The reality is that the ‘second wave’ has left behind the initial grief and shock that both patients and health professionals experienced when faced with something that, until now, we had only seen in the movies.” The second wave has led to new restrictions – including a partial lockdown since the beginning of October.

Dr. Aggarwal says her department recently had a conference with Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about the impact of COVID-19 on oncology.

“I asked him what advice he’d give oncologists, and he said to go back to as much screening as you were doing previously as quickly as possible. That’s what must be relayed to our oncologists in the community – and also to primary care physicians – because they are often the ones who are ordering and championing the screening efforts.”

This article was originated by Aude Lecrubier, Medscape French edition, and developed by Zosia Chustecka, Medscape Oncology. With additional reporting by Kate Johnson, freelance medical journalist, Claudia Gottschling for Medscape Germany, Leoleli Schwartz for Medscape em português, Tim Locke for Medscape United Kingdom, and Carla Nieto Martínez, freelance medical journalist for Medscape Spanish edition. 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

National guidelines failed to classify many younger African American lung cancer patients as being eligible for lung cancer screening in a recent retrospective study, the lead author reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The finding highlights a health disparity issue that may be addressed through an update of those guidelines that is in the works, said Carol Velez Martinez, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, La.

About one-third of the lung cancer patients in the retrospective cohort study were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) based on the 2013 lung cancer guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), said Dr. Velez Martinez.

By contrast, 12.5% of screening-ineligible patients would have been counted as LDCT eligible based on guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Velez Martinez and coauthors found in their analysis.

In a draft recommendation statement posted July 7, the USPSTF said they would now recommend that screening at age 50 years, rather than 55, and that the pack-years of smoking history that would make an individual eligible for screening would be dropped from 30 pack-years to 20, changes that task force members said would be more inclusive of African Americans and women.

Dr. Velez Martinez said she is looking forward to a formal recommendation from USPSTF soon: “I’m hoping that’s where they’re heading,” she said in an interview. “When I’m in practice as a resident, I actually bring it up to my patients, and if I have to call the insurance I don’t have a problem – but I still have to call them because they’re still going by the prior guidelines.”

“I think there are going to be a lot of other health disparities,” Dr. Revelo said in an interview. “[Dr. Velez Martinez’s] study was limited by the fact that she cared mostly for Caucasians and also African Americans, but maybe no Latinos or Hispanics that I’m sure would also be affected if we were looking to that in a bigger or national study.”

The 2013 USPSTF guidelines were based on benefits observed in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which indicated a 20% relative risk reduction in death from lung cancer; however, the generalizability of the study beyond White males has been questioned, said Dr. Velez Martinez in a presentation at the CHEST annual meeting.

About 90% of NSLT participants were White and 59% were male, according to results published in 2011.

Other studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to get lung cancer than Whites, despite comparable smoking rates between the races, and that African American men are more likely to die from lung cancer than White men, Dr. Velez Martinez said. Many African Americans live below the poverty line, which means they have limited resources for insurance and health providers, and they also participate less often in clinical trials, she added.

In their retrospective observational cohort study, Dr. Velez Martinez and coinvestigators reviewed 1,500 medical records of patients with newly diagnosed stage 1-4 lung cancers from the LSU Health Science Center Shreveport between 2011 and 2015.

They found that 33% of those lung cancer patients were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, meaning they did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines, which recommend annual LDCT in adults aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Next, they sought to classify those screening-ineligible patients based on NCCN guidelines, which recommend LDCT in patients 50 years of age or older with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and a 6-year risk of lung cancer of at least 1.3% based on the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator. The Tammemagi calculator considers factors such as age, education, body mass index, prior lung disease, familial cancer history, race and ethnicity, and smoking history.

After applying the risk stratification, the investigators found that 12.5% of these patients would have been categorized as high risk and therefore recommended for LDCT, and of that group, more than 65% were African American, Dr. Velez Martinez reported.

Dr. Revelo, who chaired the CHEST session where the findings were reported, said that shared decision-making will still be as important regardless of any changes to lung screening guidelines given the recognized potential harms of LDCT screening, such as false positives, radiation exposure, and psychological distress.

“I think we will continue to have a very personal conversation and make important decisions focused on what the patient wants,” he said.

Authors reported no disclosures.

National guidelines failed to classify many younger African American lung cancer patients as being eligible for lung cancer screening in a recent retrospective study, the lead author reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The finding highlights a health disparity issue that may be addressed through an update of those guidelines that is in the works, said Carol Velez Martinez, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, La.

About one-third of the lung cancer patients in the retrospective cohort study were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) based on the 2013 lung cancer guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), said Dr. Velez Martinez.

By contrast, 12.5% of screening-ineligible patients would have been counted as LDCT eligible based on guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Velez Martinez and coauthors found in their analysis.

In a draft recommendation statement posted July 7, the USPSTF said they would now recommend that screening at age 50 years, rather than 55, and that the pack-years of smoking history that would make an individual eligible for screening would be dropped from 30 pack-years to 20, changes that task force members said would be more inclusive of African Americans and women.

Dr. Velez Martinez said she is looking forward to a formal recommendation from USPSTF soon: “I’m hoping that’s where they’re heading,” she said in an interview. “When I’m in practice as a resident, I actually bring it up to my patients, and if I have to call the insurance I don’t have a problem – but I still have to call them because they’re still going by the prior guidelines.”

“I think there are going to be a lot of other health disparities,” Dr. Revelo said in an interview. “[Dr. Velez Martinez’s] study was limited by the fact that she cared mostly for Caucasians and also African Americans, but maybe no Latinos or Hispanics that I’m sure would also be affected if we were looking to that in a bigger or national study.”

The 2013 USPSTF guidelines were based on benefits observed in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which indicated a 20% relative risk reduction in death from lung cancer; however, the generalizability of the study beyond White males has been questioned, said Dr. Velez Martinez in a presentation at the CHEST annual meeting.

About 90% of NSLT participants were White and 59% were male, according to results published in 2011.

Other studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to get lung cancer than Whites, despite comparable smoking rates between the races, and that African American men are more likely to die from lung cancer than White men, Dr. Velez Martinez said. Many African Americans live below the poverty line, which means they have limited resources for insurance and health providers, and they also participate less often in clinical trials, she added.

In their retrospective observational cohort study, Dr. Velez Martinez and coinvestigators reviewed 1,500 medical records of patients with newly diagnosed stage 1-4 lung cancers from the LSU Health Science Center Shreveport between 2011 and 2015.

They found that 33% of those lung cancer patients were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, meaning they did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines, which recommend annual LDCT in adults aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Next, they sought to classify those screening-ineligible patients based on NCCN guidelines, which recommend LDCT in patients 50 years of age or older with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and a 6-year risk of lung cancer of at least 1.3% based on the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator. The Tammemagi calculator considers factors such as age, education, body mass index, prior lung disease, familial cancer history, race and ethnicity, and smoking history.

After applying the risk stratification, the investigators found that 12.5% of these patients would have been categorized as high risk and therefore recommended for LDCT, and of that group, more than 65% were African American, Dr. Velez Martinez reported.

Dr. Revelo, who chaired the CHEST session where the findings were reported, said that shared decision-making will still be as important regardless of any changes to lung screening guidelines given the recognized potential harms of LDCT screening, such as false positives, radiation exposure, and psychological distress.

“I think we will continue to have a very personal conversation and make important decisions focused on what the patient wants,” he said.

Authors reported no disclosures.

National guidelines failed to classify many younger African American lung cancer patients as being eligible for lung cancer screening in a recent retrospective study, the lead author reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The finding highlights a health disparity issue that may be addressed through an update of those guidelines that is in the works, said Carol Velez Martinez, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, La.

About one-third of the lung cancer patients in the retrospective cohort study were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) based on the 2013 lung cancer guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), said Dr. Velez Martinez.

By contrast, 12.5% of screening-ineligible patients would have been counted as LDCT eligible based on guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Velez Martinez and coauthors found in their analysis.

In a draft recommendation statement posted July 7, the USPSTF said they would now recommend that screening at age 50 years, rather than 55, and that the pack-years of smoking history that would make an individual eligible for screening would be dropped from 30 pack-years to 20, changes that task force members said would be more inclusive of African Americans and women.

Dr. Velez Martinez said she is looking forward to a formal recommendation from USPSTF soon: “I’m hoping that’s where they’re heading,” she said in an interview. “When I’m in practice as a resident, I actually bring it up to my patients, and if I have to call the insurance I don’t have a problem – but I still have to call them because they’re still going by the prior guidelines.”

“I think there are going to be a lot of other health disparities,” Dr. Revelo said in an interview. “[Dr. Velez Martinez’s] study was limited by the fact that she cared mostly for Caucasians and also African Americans, but maybe no Latinos or Hispanics that I’m sure would also be affected if we were looking to that in a bigger or national study.”

The 2013 USPSTF guidelines were based on benefits observed in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which indicated a 20% relative risk reduction in death from lung cancer; however, the generalizability of the study beyond White males has been questioned, said Dr. Velez Martinez in a presentation at the CHEST annual meeting.

About 90% of NSLT participants were White and 59% were male, according to results published in 2011.

Other studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to get lung cancer than Whites, despite comparable smoking rates between the races, and that African American men are more likely to die from lung cancer than White men, Dr. Velez Martinez said. Many African Americans live below the poverty line, which means they have limited resources for insurance and health providers, and they also participate less often in clinical trials, she added.

In their retrospective observational cohort study, Dr. Velez Martinez and coinvestigators reviewed 1,500 medical records of patients with newly diagnosed stage 1-4 lung cancers from the LSU Health Science Center Shreveport between 2011 and 2015.

They found that 33% of those lung cancer patients were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, meaning they did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines, which recommend annual LDCT in adults aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Next, they sought to classify those screening-ineligible patients based on NCCN guidelines, which recommend LDCT in patients 50 years of age or older with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and a 6-year risk of lung cancer of at least 1.3% based on the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator. The Tammemagi calculator considers factors such as age, education, body mass index, prior lung disease, familial cancer history, race and ethnicity, and smoking history.

After applying the risk stratification, the investigators found that 12.5% of these patients would have been categorized as high risk and therefore recommended for LDCT, and of that group, more than 65% were African American, Dr. Velez Martinez reported.

Dr. Revelo, who chaired the CHEST session where the findings were reported, said that shared decision-making will still be as important regardless of any changes to lung screening guidelines given the recognized potential harms of LDCT screening, such as false positives, radiation exposure, and psychological distress.

“I think we will continue to have a very personal conversation and make important decisions focused on what the patient wants,” he said.

Authors reported no disclosures.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved combination nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) to be used as first-line treatment of adult patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma.

This is the first drug regimen to receive regulatory approval for mesothelioma in 16 years and only the second systemic therapy to be approved for this indication.

“Today’s approval of nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides a new treatment that has demonstrated an improvement in overall survival for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“In 2004, FDA approved pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin for this indication, and now patients have an important, additional treatment option after more than a decade with only one FDA-approved drug regimen,” Dr. Pazdur added.
 

Improved overall survival

The approval is based on efficacy results from the CheckMate 743 trial, which compared immunotherapy with a chemotherapy regimen in a cohort of more than 600 treatment-naive patients (no systemic therapies) with unresectable mesothelioma.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab and ipilimumab for up to 2 years (n = 303) or six cycles of combination chemotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed (n = 302).

The study results were initially presented during the presidential symposium of the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020.

The combined immunotherapy regimen was associated with a 26% improvement in overall survival. At 2 years, 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.

Overall, the trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus those treated with chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 18.1 months versus 14.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .002).

Median progression-free survival per blinded independent central review was 6.8 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 7.2 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 1.0). The confirmed overall response rate was 40% versus 43% in the immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.

Median response duration was 11.0 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm. At 24 months, 32% of the immunotherapy patients were still experiencing a response, compared with 8% of those in the chemotherapy arm.

The recommended doses for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma are nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in patients receiving combination immunotherapy were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, dyspnea, nausea, decreased appetite, cough, and pruritus.
 

New standard of care?

The CheckMate 743 trial “met its primary endpoint of statistically improving overall survival for the experimental arm vs chemotherapy in a prespecified interim analysis,” reported study author Paul Baas, MD, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, at the time of its presentation.

He suggested that combination nivolumab and ipilimumab should therefore “be considered as a new standard of care.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved combination nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) to be used as first-line treatment of adult patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma.

This is the first drug regimen to receive regulatory approval for mesothelioma in 16 years and only the second systemic therapy to be approved for this indication.

“Today’s approval of nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides a new treatment that has demonstrated an improvement in overall survival for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“In 2004, FDA approved pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin for this indication, and now patients have an important, additional treatment option after more than a decade with only one FDA-approved drug regimen,” Dr. Pazdur added.
 

Improved overall survival

The approval is based on efficacy results from the CheckMate 743 trial, which compared immunotherapy with a chemotherapy regimen in a cohort of more than 600 treatment-naive patients (no systemic therapies) with unresectable mesothelioma.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab and ipilimumab for up to 2 years (n = 303) or six cycles of combination chemotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed (n = 302).

The study results were initially presented during the presidential symposium of the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020.

The combined immunotherapy regimen was associated with a 26% improvement in overall survival. At 2 years, 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.

Overall, the trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus those treated with chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 18.1 months versus 14.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .002).

Median progression-free survival per blinded independent central review was 6.8 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 7.2 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 1.0). The confirmed overall response rate was 40% versus 43% in the immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.

Median response duration was 11.0 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm. At 24 months, 32% of the immunotherapy patients were still experiencing a response, compared with 8% of those in the chemotherapy arm.

The recommended doses for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma are nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in patients receiving combination immunotherapy were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, dyspnea, nausea, decreased appetite, cough, and pruritus.
 

New standard of care?

The CheckMate 743 trial “met its primary endpoint of statistically improving overall survival for the experimental arm vs chemotherapy in a prespecified interim analysis,” reported study author Paul Baas, MD, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, at the time of its presentation.

He suggested that combination nivolumab and ipilimumab should therefore “be considered as a new standard of care.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved combination nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) and ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) to be used as first-line treatment of adult patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma.

This is the first drug regimen to receive regulatory approval for mesothelioma in 16 years and only the second systemic therapy to be approved for this indication.

“Today’s approval of nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides a new treatment that has demonstrated an improvement in overall survival for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma,” Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“In 2004, FDA approved pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin for this indication, and now patients have an important, additional treatment option after more than a decade with only one FDA-approved drug regimen,” Dr. Pazdur added.
 

Improved overall survival

The approval is based on efficacy results from the CheckMate 743 trial, which compared immunotherapy with a chemotherapy regimen in a cohort of more than 600 treatment-naive patients (no systemic therapies) with unresectable mesothelioma.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab and ipilimumab for up to 2 years (n = 303) or six cycles of combination chemotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed (n = 302).

The study results were initially presented during the presidential symposium of the World Congress on Lung Cancer 2020.

The combined immunotherapy regimen was associated with a 26% improvement in overall survival. At 2 years, 41% of patients in the immunotherapy arm were still alive versus 27% in the chemotherapy group.

Overall, the trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus those treated with chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 18.1 months versus 14.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .002).

Median progression-free survival per blinded independent central review was 6.8 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 7.2 months in the chemotherapy arm (HR, 1.0). The confirmed overall response rate was 40% versus 43% in the immunotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.

Median response duration was 11.0 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm and 6.7 months in the chemotherapy arm. At 24 months, 32% of the immunotherapy patients were still experiencing a response, compared with 8% of those in the chemotherapy arm.

The recommended doses for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma are nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in patients receiving combination immunotherapy were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, dyspnea, nausea, decreased appetite, cough, and pruritus.
 

New standard of care?

The CheckMate 743 trial “met its primary endpoint of statistically improving overall survival for the experimental arm vs chemotherapy in a prespecified interim analysis,” reported study author Paul Baas, MD, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, at the time of its presentation.

He suggested that combination nivolumab and ipilimumab should therefore “be considered as a new standard of care.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A higher dose of thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) may improve overall survival in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC), but it’s not clear if this dose should become the new standard of care.

In a phase 2 trial, the 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% when twice-daily TRT was given at a dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and 75% when it was given at a dose of 60 Gy in 40 fractions in patients with LS-SCLC. The two treatment arms had similar safety and quality of life outcomes.

The higher dose “did not add toxicity,” a significant concern with higher radiation doses, said Bjorn Gronberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, when presenting this study at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

However, the discussant for this study pointed out several limitations of the trial and concluded that the 45 Gy dose should remain the standard of care.

Dr. Gonberg explained that concurrent platinum/etoposide (PE) chemotherapy and TRT is the standard treatment for LS-SCLC, and the most recommended schedule for TRT is twice daily at 45 Gy in 30 fractions. He noted, however, that “there’s clearly a need for better treatment” because less than 30% of patients are cured.

“We hypothesized that increasing the dose of radiotherapy might improve survival,” he said.
 

Study details

Dr. Gonberg and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial of patients with stage I-III SCLC confined to one hemithorax plus regional lymph nodes. The trial enrolled 176 patients and randomized 170 of them.

The patients received four courses of PE 3 weeks apart. For TRT, 81 patients were randomized to 45 Gy in 30 fractions, and 89 patients were randomized to 60 Gy in 40 fractions, with 10 fractions per week starting with the second PE course.

All patients who responded to chemoradiotherapy were offered prophylactic cranial irradiation at 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 30 Gy in 15 fractions.

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 65 years in both arms, and most patients were women (60.5% in the 45 Gy arm and 56% in the 60 Gy arm).

The mean number of chemotherapy courses was 3.8 in each arm, about 85% of patients received prophylactic cranial radiation, and roughly half received second-line chemotherapy. Overall, 73 patients completed TRT in the 45 Gy arm, and 81 completed TRT in the 60 Gy arm.
 

Efficacy

There was no significant difference in overall response rate between the treatment arms. It was 81.6% in the 45 Gy arm and 82.1% in the 60 Gy arm (P = .81).

Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months in the lower-dose arm and 18.7 months in the higher-dose arm (P = .22).

Still, there was a significant difference in overall survival between the arms. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% in the lower-dose arm and 75% in the higher-dose arm (P = .002). The median overall survival was 24 months and 37.2 months, respectively (P = .034).

Discussant Corinne Faivre-Finn, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), cautioned that the lower-dose arm appeared to underperform, compared with prior research.

Additionally, “the survival curves separate at about 9 months, [with a] significant difference at 2 years, but the survival curves are coming back together at around 5 years, and that shows that there is a small difference in terms of long-term cure,” she said.
 

Safety

There were no significant differences in toxicity between the treatment arms.

Dr. Gronberg noted that esophagitis is considered the main dose-limiting toxicity with TRT, but there was no difference in incidence between the two arms (P = .916). Grade 3 esophagitis occurred in 18.4% of patients in the lower-dose arm and 19% of those in the higher-dose arm. There was no grade 4 esophagitis.

Rates of grade 3 and 4 neutropenic infections were higher in the lower-dose arm than in the higher-dose arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08).

There were also no significant differences in quality of life surveys that patients filled out periodically from baseline until week 52.

“Not so surprisingly,” Dr. Gronberg said, dysphagia was more common at the end of TRT. However, patients had recovered to baseline levels at week 22.

“There’s no difference in the maximum dysphagia reported between the treatment arms, but ... patients in the high-dose arm needed longer time to recover from dysphagia,” Dr. Gronberg said.

Scores for dyspnea, physical function, and global quality of life were similar between the treatment arms.

The similar toxicity between the arms “is quite puzzling,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said, given the 33% increase in radiation dose in the experimental arm. She said this “probably points out an imbalance in some of the factors” between the groups, including tumor volume and doses to organs at risk, which were not reported.

“There are some important missing data, in terms of interpretation of results,” she said.

Given the limitations, and the fact that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Faivre-Finn said “the results cannot be considered definitive and practice changing,” pending additional study.

“So my final conclusion is that twice-a-day radiotherapy at a dose of 45 Gy remains the standard of care, as recommended in the recently published ASTRO [American Society for Radiation Oncology] guidelines,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said.

The study was funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Dr. Gronberg disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Faivre-Finn disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Elekta, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Gronberg B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 1783O.

A higher dose of thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) may improve overall survival in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC), but it’s not clear if this dose should become the new standard of care.

In a phase 2 trial, the 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% when twice-daily TRT was given at a dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and 75% when it was given at a dose of 60 Gy in 40 fractions in patients with LS-SCLC. The two treatment arms had similar safety and quality of life outcomes.

The higher dose “did not add toxicity,” a significant concern with higher radiation doses, said Bjorn Gronberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, when presenting this study at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

However, the discussant for this study pointed out several limitations of the trial and concluded that the 45 Gy dose should remain the standard of care.

Dr. Gonberg explained that concurrent platinum/etoposide (PE) chemotherapy and TRT is the standard treatment for LS-SCLC, and the most recommended schedule for TRT is twice daily at 45 Gy in 30 fractions. He noted, however, that “there’s clearly a need for better treatment” because less than 30% of patients are cured.

“We hypothesized that increasing the dose of radiotherapy might improve survival,” he said.
 

Study details

Dr. Gonberg and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial of patients with stage I-III SCLC confined to one hemithorax plus regional lymph nodes. The trial enrolled 176 patients and randomized 170 of them.

The patients received four courses of PE 3 weeks apart. For TRT, 81 patients were randomized to 45 Gy in 30 fractions, and 89 patients were randomized to 60 Gy in 40 fractions, with 10 fractions per week starting with the second PE course.

All patients who responded to chemoradiotherapy were offered prophylactic cranial irradiation at 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 30 Gy in 15 fractions.

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 65 years in both arms, and most patients were women (60.5% in the 45 Gy arm and 56% in the 60 Gy arm).

The mean number of chemotherapy courses was 3.8 in each arm, about 85% of patients received prophylactic cranial radiation, and roughly half received second-line chemotherapy. Overall, 73 patients completed TRT in the 45 Gy arm, and 81 completed TRT in the 60 Gy arm.
 

Efficacy

There was no significant difference in overall response rate between the treatment arms. It was 81.6% in the 45 Gy arm and 82.1% in the 60 Gy arm (P = .81).

Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months in the lower-dose arm and 18.7 months in the higher-dose arm (P = .22).

Still, there was a significant difference in overall survival between the arms. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% in the lower-dose arm and 75% in the higher-dose arm (P = .002). The median overall survival was 24 months and 37.2 months, respectively (P = .034).

Discussant Corinne Faivre-Finn, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), cautioned that the lower-dose arm appeared to underperform, compared with prior research.

Additionally, “the survival curves separate at about 9 months, [with a] significant difference at 2 years, but the survival curves are coming back together at around 5 years, and that shows that there is a small difference in terms of long-term cure,” she said.
 

Safety

There were no significant differences in toxicity between the treatment arms.

Dr. Gronberg noted that esophagitis is considered the main dose-limiting toxicity with TRT, but there was no difference in incidence between the two arms (P = .916). Grade 3 esophagitis occurred in 18.4% of patients in the lower-dose arm and 19% of those in the higher-dose arm. There was no grade 4 esophagitis.

Rates of grade 3 and 4 neutropenic infections were higher in the lower-dose arm than in the higher-dose arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08).

There were also no significant differences in quality of life surveys that patients filled out periodically from baseline until week 52.

“Not so surprisingly,” Dr. Gronberg said, dysphagia was more common at the end of TRT. However, patients had recovered to baseline levels at week 22.

“There’s no difference in the maximum dysphagia reported between the treatment arms, but ... patients in the high-dose arm needed longer time to recover from dysphagia,” Dr. Gronberg said.

Scores for dyspnea, physical function, and global quality of life were similar between the treatment arms.

The similar toxicity between the arms “is quite puzzling,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said, given the 33% increase in radiation dose in the experimental arm. She said this “probably points out an imbalance in some of the factors” between the groups, including tumor volume and doses to organs at risk, which were not reported.

“There are some important missing data, in terms of interpretation of results,” she said.

Given the limitations, and the fact that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Faivre-Finn said “the results cannot be considered definitive and practice changing,” pending additional study.

“So my final conclusion is that twice-a-day radiotherapy at a dose of 45 Gy remains the standard of care, as recommended in the recently published ASTRO [American Society for Radiation Oncology] guidelines,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said.

The study was funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Dr. Gronberg disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Faivre-Finn disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Elekta, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Gronberg B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 1783O.

A higher dose of thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) may improve overall survival in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC), but it’s not clear if this dose should become the new standard of care.

In a phase 2 trial, the 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% when twice-daily TRT was given at a dose of 45 Gy in 30 fractions and 75% when it was given at a dose of 60 Gy in 40 fractions in patients with LS-SCLC. The two treatment arms had similar safety and quality of life outcomes.

The higher dose “did not add toxicity,” a significant concern with higher radiation doses, said Bjorn Gronberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, when presenting this study at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

However, the discussant for this study pointed out several limitations of the trial and concluded that the 45 Gy dose should remain the standard of care.

Dr. Gonberg explained that concurrent platinum/etoposide (PE) chemotherapy and TRT is the standard treatment for LS-SCLC, and the most recommended schedule for TRT is twice daily at 45 Gy in 30 fractions. He noted, however, that “there’s clearly a need for better treatment” because less than 30% of patients are cured.

“We hypothesized that increasing the dose of radiotherapy might improve survival,” he said.
 

Study details

Dr. Gonberg and colleagues conducted a phase 2 trial of patients with stage I-III SCLC confined to one hemithorax plus regional lymph nodes. The trial enrolled 176 patients and randomized 170 of them.

The patients received four courses of PE 3 weeks apart. For TRT, 81 patients were randomized to 45 Gy in 30 fractions, and 89 patients were randomized to 60 Gy in 40 fractions, with 10 fractions per week starting with the second PE course.

All patients who responded to chemoradiotherapy were offered prophylactic cranial irradiation at 25 Gy in 10 fractions or 30 Gy in 15 fractions.

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. The median age was 65 years in both arms, and most patients were women (60.5% in the 45 Gy arm and 56% in the 60 Gy arm).

The mean number of chemotherapy courses was 3.8 in each arm, about 85% of patients received prophylactic cranial radiation, and roughly half received second-line chemotherapy. Overall, 73 patients completed TRT in the 45 Gy arm, and 81 completed TRT in the 60 Gy arm.
 

Efficacy

There was no significant difference in overall response rate between the treatment arms. It was 81.6% in the 45 Gy arm and 82.1% in the 60 Gy arm (P = .81).

Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months in the lower-dose arm and 18.7 months in the higher-dose arm (P = .22).

Still, there was a significant difference in overall survival between the arms. The 2-year overall survival rate was 51.3% in the lower-dose arm and 75% in the higher-dose arm (P = .002). The median overall survival was 24 months and 37.2 months, respectively (P = .034).

Discussant Corinne Faivre-Finn, MD, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), cautioned that the lower-dose arm appeared to underperform, compared with prior research.

Additionally, “the survival curves separate at about 9 months, [with a] significant difference at 2 years, but the survival curves are coming back together at around 5 years, and that shows that there is a small difference in terms of long-term cure,” she said.
 

Safety

There were no significant differences in toxicity between the treatment arms.

Dr. Gronberg noted that esophagitis is considered the main dose-limiting toxicity with TRT, but there was no difference in incidence between the two arms (P = .916). Grade 3 esophagitis occurred in 18.4% of patients in the lower-dose arm and 19% of those in the higher-dose arm. There was no grade 4 esophagitis.

Rates of grade 3 and 4 neutropenic infections were higher in the lower-dose arm than in the higher-dose arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .08).

There were also no significant differences in quality of life surveys that patients filled out periodically from baseline until week 52.

“Not so surprisingly,” Dr. Gronberg said, dysphagia was more common at the end of TRT. However, patients had recovered to baseline levels at week 22.

“There’s no difference in the maximum dysphagia reported between the treatment arms, but ... patients in the high-dose arm needed longer time to recover from dysphagia,” Dr. Gronberg said.

Scores for dyspnea, physical function, and global quality of life were similar between the treatment arms.

The similar toxicity between the arms “is quite puzzling,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said, given the 33% increase in radiation dose in the experimental arm. She said this “probably points out an imbalance in some of the factors” between the groups, including tumor volume and doses to organs at risk, which were not reported.

“There are some important missing data, in terms of interpretation of results,” she said.

Given the limitations, and the fact that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Faivre-Finn said “the results cannot be considered definitive and practice changing,” pending additional study.

“So my final conclusion is that twice-a-day radiotherapy at a dose of 45 Gy remains the standard of care, as recommended in the recently published ASTRO [American Society for Radiation Oncology] guidelines,” Dr. Faivre-Finn said.

The study was funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Dr. Gronberg disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Faivre-Finn disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Elekta, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Gronberg B et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 1783O.

Adding apatinib to gefitinib as first-line treatment improved progression-free survival (PFS) but increased toxicity in patients with advanced, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the ACTIVE trial.

ACTIVE is the first phase 3 trial of an oral vascular epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (VEGFR2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) added to an EGFR-TKI as first-line therapy in this population, according to Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.

Dr. Zhang presented results from ACTIVE at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

“This dual oral regimen will provide more convenient treatment for patients who require long-term administration,” Dr. Zhang said. He added that apatinib plus gefitinib “is expected to become a new first-line treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.”

A discussant for the ACTIVE study was less optimistic, however, noting that the regimen proved tough to tolerate for some patients, and the PFS benefit may not translate to overall survival.
 

Study rationale and details

Sensitizing EGFR mutations occur in about 10% of White patients and up to 50% of Asian patients, Dr. Zhang noted. Unfortunately, most patients progress after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs because of acquired resistance.

Blocking VEGF receptor pathways has been shown to enhance EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, and pilot study results have shown apatinib – an oral VEGFR2–TKI – to be safe and well-tolerated with promising efficacy in combination with gefitinib, Dr. Zhang added.

To expand upon those results, he and his colleagues tested apatinib with gefitinib in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled ACTIVE trial (CTONG1706).

The trial included 313 patients (median age, 58.5 years) with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. All were chemotherapy-naive and EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R).

Patients were randomized 1:1 to first-line apatinib at 500 mg daily plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 157) or placebo plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 156) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
 

Efficacy and safety

The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review. The median follow-up was 15.8 months.

The median PFS was 13.7 months in the apatinib group and 10.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0189).

Objective response rates were similar for both groups – 77.1% with apatinib and 73.7% with placebo. However, depth of response ≥30% and depth of response ≥50% both favored the apatinib arm – 89.2% versus 79.5% for ≥ 30% (P = .0209) and 64.3% versus 52.6% for ≥50% (P = .0238).

In addition, the median duration of response was longer for the apatinib group – 12.9 months versus 9.3 months (HR, 0.64; P = .005).

Exploratory biomarker analyses showed the benefit of apatinib was more common in patients with TP53 exon 8 mutations.

The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events was 84.1% in the apatinib arm and 37.7% in the placebo arm. Diarrhea (73.2%) and hypertension (68.2%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the apatinib group.

Dose interruptions were more common in the apatinib group (59.5% vs. 22.7%) as were dose reductions (48.4% vs. 4.5%). However, treatment discontinuations attributable to treatment-emergent adverse events were few in both arms (5.1% in the apatinib arm and 3.2% in the placebo arm).
 

Cause for hesitation

“VEGFR-TKIs have not yet found a solid home in lung cancer,” said study discussant Lecia V. Sequist, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Listing 10 VEGFR-TKIs, Dr. Sequist noted: “None of them have changed practice.”

She added that, while an all-oral regimen is appealing, the benefit of adding apatinib to gefitinib was modest, and the regimen was “fairly difficult” to tolerate. “The PFS with apatinib plus gefitinib is well below what we see with other EGFR/VEGF first-line studies,” she said.

Dr. Sequist also observed that most studies have shown a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit. “That, in combination with the toxicity, makes me a little hesitant about this regimen. The role of VEGF remains unclear in EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer in 2020,” she concluded.

The ACTIVE study was funded by Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group, and grants from Sun Yat-sen University and the National Key R&D Program of China. Dr. Zhang disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sequist disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA50.

Adding apatinib to gefitinib as first-line treatment improved progression-free survival (PFS) but increased toxicity in patients with advanced, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the ACTIVE trial.

ACTIVE is the first phase 3 trial of an oral vascular epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (VEGFR2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) added to an EGFR-TKI as first-line therapy in this population, according to Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.

Dr. Zhang presented results from ACTIVE at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

“This dual oral regimen will provide more convenient treatment for patients who require long-term administration,” Dr. Zhang said. He added that apatinib plus gefitinib “is expected to become a new first-line treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.”

A discussant for the ACTIVE study was less optimistic, however, noting that the regimen proved tough to tolerate for some patients, and the PFS benefit may not translate to overall survival.
 

Study rationale and details

Sensitizing EGFR mutations occur in about 10% of White patients and up to 50% of Asian patients, Dr. Zhang noted. Unfortunately, most patients progress after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs because of acquired resistance.

Blocking VEGF receptor pathways has been shown to enhance EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, and pilot study results have shown apatinib – an oral VEGFR2–TKI – to be safe and well-tolerated with promising efficacy in combination with gefitinib, Dr. Zhang added.

To expand upon those results, he and his colleagues tested apatinib with gefitinib in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled ACTIVE trial (CTONG1706).

The trial included 313 patients (median age, 58.5 years) with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. All were chemotherapy-naive and EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R).

Patients were randomized 1:1 to first-line apatinib at 500 mg daily plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 157) or placebo plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 156) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
 

Efficacy and safety

The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review. The median follow-up was 15.8 months.

The median PFS was 13.7 months in the apatinib group and 10.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0189).

Objective response rates were similar for both groups – 77.1% with apatinib and 73.7% with placebo. However, depth of response ≥30% and depth of response ≥50% both favored the apatinib arm – 89.2% versus 79.5% for ≥ 30% (P = .0209) and 64.3% versus 52.6% for ≥50% (P = .0238).

In addition, the median duration of response was longer for the apatinib group – 12.9 months versus 9.3 months (HR, 0.64; P = .005).

Exploratory biomarker analyses showed the benefit of apatinib was more common in patients with TP53 exon 8 mutations.

The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events was 84.1% in the apatinib arm and 37.7% in the placebo arm. Diarrhea (73.2%) and hypertension (68.2%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the apatinib group.

Dose interruptions were more common in the apatinib group (59.5% vs. 22.7%) as were dose reductions (48.4% vs. 4.5%). However, treatment discontinuations attributable to treatment-emergent adverse events were few in both arms (5.1% in the apatinib arm and 3.2% in the placebo arm).
 

Cause for hesitation

“VEGFR-TKIs have not yet found a solid home in lung cancer,” said study discussant Lecia V. Sequist, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Listing 10 VEGFR-TKIs, Dr. Sequist noted: “None of them have changed practice.”

She added that, while an all-oral regimen is appealing, the benefit of adding apatinib to gefitinib was modest, and the regimen was “fairly difficult” to tolerate. “The PFS with apatinib plus gefitinib is well below what we see with other EGFR/VEGF first-line studies,” she said.

Dr. Sequist also observed that most studies have shown a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit. “That, in combination with the toxicity, makes me a little hesitant about this regimen. The role of VEGF remains unclear in EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer in 2020,” she concluded.

The ACTIVE study was funded by Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group, and grants from Sun Yat-sen University and the National Key R&D Program of China. Dr. Zhang disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sequist disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA50.

Adding apatinib to gefitinib as first-line treatment improved progression-free survival (PFS) but increased toxicity in patients with advanced, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the ACTIVE trial.

ACTIVE is the first phase 3 trial of an oral vascular epidermal growth factor receptor–2 (VEGFR2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) added to an EGFR-TKI as first-line therapy in this population, according to Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.

Dr. Zhang presented results from ACTIVE at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

“This dual oral regimen will provide more convenient treatment for patients who require long-term administration,” Dr. Zhang said. He added that apatinib plus gefitinib “is expected to become a new first-line treatment option for EGFR-mutant NSCLC.”

A discussant for the ACTIVE study was less optimistic, however, noting that the regimen proved tough to tolerate for some patients, and the PFS benefit may not translate to overall survival.
 

Study rationale and details

Sensitizing EGFR mutations occur in about 10% of White patients and up to 50% of Asian patients, Dr. Zhang noted. Unfortunately, most patients progress after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs because of acquired resistance.

Blocking VEGF receptor pathways has been shown to enhance EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, and pilot study results have shown apatinib – an oral VEGFR2–TKI – to be safe and well-tolerated with promising efficacy in combination with gefitinib, Dr. Zhang added.

To expand upon those results, he and his colleagues tested apatinib with gefitinib in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled ACTIVE trial (CTONG1706).

The trial included 313 patients (median age, 58.5 years) with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. All were chemotherapy-naive and EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R).

Patients were randomized 1:1 to first-line apatinib at 500 mg daily plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 157) or placebo plus gefitinib at 250 mg daily (n = 156) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.
 

Efficacy and safety

The primary endpoint was PFS by independent review. The median follow-up was 15.8 months.

The median PFS was 13.7 months in the apatinib group and 10.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; P = .0189).

Objective response rates were similar for both groups – 77.1% with apatinib and 73.7% with placebo. However, depth of response ≥30% and depth of response ≥50% both favored the apatinib arm – 89.2% versus 79.5% for ≥ 30% (P = .0209) and 64.3% versus 52.6% for ≥50% (P = .0238).

In addition, the median duration of response was longer for the apatinib group – 12.9 months versus 9.3 months (HR, 0.64; P = .005).

Exploratory biomarker analyses showed the benefit of apatinib was more common in patients with TP53 exon 8 mutations.

The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events was 84.1% in the apatinib arm and 37.7% in the placebo arm. Diarrhea (73.2%) and hypertension (68.2%) were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the apatinib group.

Dose interruptions were more common in the apatinib group (59.5% vs. 22.7%) as were dose reductions (48.4% vs. 4.5%). However, treatment discontinuations attributable to treatment-emergent adverse events were few in both arms (5.1% in the apatinib arm and 3.2% in the placebo arm).
 

Cause for hesitation

“VEGFR-TKIs have not yet found a solid home in lung cancer,” said study discussant Lecia V. Sequist, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Listing 10 VEGFR-TKIs, Dr. Sequist noted: “None of them have changed practice.”

She added that, while an all-oral regimen is appealing, the benefit of adding apatinib to gefitinib was modest, and the regimen was “fairly difficult” to tolerate. “The PFS with apatinib plus gefitinib is well below what we see with other EGFR/VEGF first-line studies,” she said.

Dr. Sequist also observed that most studies have shown a PFS benefit but no overall survival benefit. “That, in combination with the toxicity, makes me a little hesitant about this regimen. The role of VEGF remains unclear in EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer in 2020,” she concluded.

The ACTIVE study was funded by Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group, and grants from Sun Yat-sen University and the National Key R&D Program of China. Dr. Zhang disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sequist disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA50.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

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.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A global analysis of premature deaths from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) has shown mixed results for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.

The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.

As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.

The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.

“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.

The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.

SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.

The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
 

Results of the analysis

“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.

Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.

In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.

On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.

The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.

“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
 

Explaining the GI cancer results

“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.

H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.

While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.

A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.

At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
 

Reducing NCD deaths

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.

High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.

“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”

Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.

“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.

Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.

The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.

“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.

“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.

COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.

The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.

The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
 

SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.

A global analysis of premature deaths from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) has shown mixed results for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.

The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.

As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.

The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.

“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.

The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.

SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.

The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
 

Results of the analysis

“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.

Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.

In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.

On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.

The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.

“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
 

Explaining the GI cancer results

“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.

H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.

While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.

A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.

At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
 

Reducing NCD deaths

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.

High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.

“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”

Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.

“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.

Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.

The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.

“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.

“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.

COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.

The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.

The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
 

SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.

A global analysis of premature deaths from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) has shown mixed results for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.

The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.

As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.

The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.

“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.

The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.

SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.

The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
 

Results of the analysis

“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.

Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.

In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.

On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.

The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.

“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
 

Explaining the GI cancer results

“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.

H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.

While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.

A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.

At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
 

Reducing NCD deaths

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.

High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.

“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”

Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.

“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.

Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.

The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.

“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.

“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.

COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.

The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.

The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
 

SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.

KRAS, one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer, has long been thought to be “undruggable,” but early results from a clinical trial of the experimental KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Amgen) suggest that at least one KRAS mutation common in non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) has a soft underbelly.

In the phase 1 CodeBreaK 100 trial, sotorasib, an investigational first-in-class inhibitor of the KRAS p.G12C mutation, showed encouraging activity against advanced NSCLC and other solid tumors.

Among patients with NSCLC, 19 (32.2%) of 59 had a confirmed objective response to sotorasib monotherapy, and 52 (88.1%) had disease control, reported David S. Hong, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Sotorasib also demonstrated durable disease control in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Hong.

He presented secondary efficacy endpoint results from the trial in an online presentation during the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial met its primary endpoint of safety of sotorasib, with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatal adverse events, and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in less than 20% of patients.

“The safety profile is more favorable than that of other targeted agents, and I think the reason why you have a quite safe compound here is that sotorasib is very specific in its binding to KRAS G12C, and KRAS G12C is only present in the tumor,” coinvestigator Marwan G. Fakih, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. Fakih was co–lead author of the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A real “triumph”

Sotorasib is “a triumph of drug discovery,” commented Colin Lindsay, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant.

“We know that KRAS, over many years, over 3 decades, has been very difficult to target,” he said.

“The early development of KRAS G12C–targeted agents is just the beginning, lending hope that the ability to target not only other KRAS mutations but also other targets previously thought to be undruggable may be within reach,” write Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, from the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold, PhD, from the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial.

The KRAS, which stands for Kristen rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, p.G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form. The mutation has been identified in approximately 13% of NSCLC tumors, in 1% to 7% of colorectal cancers, and in other solid tumors.

But the mutation has been considered too difficult to target because of KRAS’ strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate (GTP), an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug binding sites.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form, Dr. Fakih explained.
 

Study details

The CodeBreaK 100 investigators enrolled patients with 13 different locally advanced or metastatic solid tumor types, all bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation.

The trial began with a dose-escalation phase, with two to four patients per cohort assigned to receive daily oral sotorasib at doses of 180, 360, 720, or 960 mg. The 960 mg dose was selected for expansion cohorts and for planned phase 2 studies, based on the safety profile and the lack of dose-limiting toxicities.

Hong and colleagues reported results for 129 patients treated in the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts, including 59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer and 28 with other tumor types, but focused primarily on patients with NSCLC.

After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, 59 patients with NSCLC had been treated, 3 at the 180 mg dose, 16 at 360 mg, 6 at 720 mg, and 34 at 960 mg. At the time of data cutoff in June of this year, 14 patients were still on treatment and 45 had discontinued, either from disease progression (35 patients), death (5), patient request (4) or adverse events (1).

As noted, there were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatalities reported.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 18.6% of patients. The only grade 4 treatment-related event was diarrhea, in one patient. Grade 3 events included elevated liver transaminases in nine patients, increased alkaline phosphatase in two, anemia in one, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase levels, decreased lymphocyte count, hepatitis, and hyponatremia in one patient each.

Dr. Fakih said that, given sotorasib’s high degree of specificity, it’s unclear what might be causing the observed adverse events.
 

Responses at all dose levels

The confirmed partial response rate was 32.2% for patients with NSCLC treated at all dose levels, and 35.3% for patients who received the 960 mg dose.

Among all NSCLC patients, and all treated at the highest 960-mg dose level, the stable disease rates were 55.9%. The respective disease control rates were 88.1% and 91.2%.

Tumor reductions occurred across all dose levels in patients with NSCLC. The median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.

Hong reported results for one patient, a 59-year-old man with the mutation who had experienced disease progression on five prior therapies including targeted agents, chemotherapy, and a checkpoint inhibitor, and had gamma-knife surgery for brain lesions.

This patient had a complete response in target lesions and a partial response overall, which included shrinkage of central nervous system metastases. He recently had progression in non-target lesions, after 1.5 years in response, Dr. Hong said.

The median duration of response was 10.9 months for patients with partial responses and 4 months for patients with stable disease.

Hong noted that response to sotorasib was seen across a range of co-mutational profiles, including several patients with four mutations in addition to KRAS p.G12C.
 

Other tumors, possible combinations

Among 42 patients with colorectal cancers bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation, 3 (7.1%) had a partial response. There were also partial responses seen in one patient each with melanoma and with appendiceal, endometrial, and pancreatic tumors.

“Overall, the results of this trial are very encouraging, showing the first step in ‘drugging the undruggable,’ ” Dr. LoRusso and Dr. Sebolt-Leopold wrote in their editorial.

They suggested that therapy with sotorasib may be improved by combining it with other agents that could target resistance to KRAS inhibition.

“A recent study showed that KRAS G12C colorectal cancer cells have higher basal epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity than NSCLC cells, leading to a rapid rebound in mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase signaling and resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition,” the editorialists wrote. “This observation is consistent with the weaker observed clinical activity of sotorasib in patients with colorectal cancer, a problem that may be addressed by combining it with an EGFR inhibitor [e.g., cetuximab], as seen preclinically.”

“I think this drug is being positioned not only in refractory disease, but we’re hoping to see it move upfront in non–small cell lung cancer, and we’re hoping to improve its efficacy in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Fakih said in an interview.

The study was sponsored by Amgen and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hong disclosed research/grant funding and an advisory/consulting role with Amgen and others. Dr. Fakih disclosed a speaking engagement for Amgen and consulting for and grant support from others. Dr. Lindsay disclosed consulting for Amgen and institutional research funding from the company and others. Dr. LoRusso disclosed fees from multiple companies, not including Amgen. Dr. Sebolt-Leopold disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

KRAS, one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer, has long been thought to be “undruggable,” but early results from a clinical trial of the experimental KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Amgen) suggest that at least one KRAS mutation common in non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) has a soft underbelly.

In the phase 1 CodeBreaK 100 trial, sotorasib, an investigational first-in-class inhibitor of the KRAS p.G12C mutation, showed encouraging activity against advanced NSCLC and other solid tumors.

Among patients with NSCLC, 19 (32.2%) of 59 had a confirmed objective response to sotorasib monotherapy, and 52 (88.1%) had disease control, reported David S. Hong, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Sotorasib also demonstrated durable disease control in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Hong.

He presented secondary efficacy endpoint results from the trial in an online presentation during the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial met its primary endpoint of safety of sotorasib, with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatal adverse events, and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in less than 20% of patients.

“The safety profile is more favorable than that of other targeted agents, and I think the reason why you have a quite safe compound here is that sotorasib is very specific in its binding to KRAS G12C, and KRAS G12C is only present in the tumor,” coinvestigator Marwan G. Fakih, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. Fakih was co–lead author of the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A real “triumph”

Sotorasib is “a triumph of drug discovery,” commented Colin Lindsay, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant.

“We know that KRAS, over many years, over 3 decades, has been very difficult to target,” he said.

“The early development of KRAS G12C–targeted agents is just the beginning, lending hope that the ability to target not only other KRAS mutations but also other targets previously thought to be undruggable may be within reach,” write Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, from the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold, PhD, from the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial.

The KRAS, which stands for Kristen rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, p.G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form. The mutation has been identified in approximately 13% of NSCLC tumors, in 1% to 7% of colorectal cancers, and in other solid tumors.

But the mutation has been considered too difficult to target because of KRAS’ strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate (GTP), an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug binding sites.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form, Dr. Fakih explained.
 

Study details

The CodeBreaK 100 investigators enrolled patients with 13 different locally advanced or metastatic solid tumor types, all bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation.

The trial began with a dose-escalation phase, with two to four patients per cohort assigned to receive daily oral sotorasib at doses of 180, 360, 720, or 960 mg. The 960 mg dose was selected for expansion cohorts and for planned phase 2 studies, based on the safety profile and the lack of dose-limiting toxicities.

Hong and colleagues reported results for 129 patients treated in the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts, including 59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer and 28 with other tumor types, but focused primarily on patients with NSCLC.

After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, 59 patients with NSCLC had been treated, 3 at the 180 mg dose, 16 at 360 mg, 6 at 720 mg, and 34 at 960 mg. At the time of data cutoff in June of this year, 14 patients were still on treatment and 45 had discontinued, either from disease progression (35 patients), death (5), patient request (4) or adverse events (1).

As noted, there were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatalities reported.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 18.6% of patients. The only grade 4 treatment-related event was diarrhea, in one patient. Grade 3 events included elevated liver transaminases in nine patients, increased alkaline phosphatase in two, anemia in one, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase levels, decreased lymphocyte count, hepatitis, and hyponatremia in one patient each.

Dr. Fakih said that, given sotorasib’s high degree of specificity, it’s unclear what might be causing the observed adverse events.
 

Responses at all dose levels

The confirmed partial response rate was 32.2% for patients with NSCLC treated at all dose levels, and 35.3% for patients who received the 960 mg dose.

Among all NSCLC patients, and all treated at the highest 960-mg dose level, the stable disease rates were 55.9%. The respective disease control rates were 88.1% and 91.2%.

Tumor reductions occurred across all dose levels in patients with NSCLC. The median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.

Hong reported results for one patient, a 59-year-old man with the mutation who had experienced disease progression on five prior therapies including targeted agents, chemotherapy, and a checkpoint inhibitor, and had gamma-knife surgery for brain lesions.

This patient had a complete response in target lesions and a partial response overall, which included shrinkage of central nervous system metastases. He recently had progression in non-target lesions, after 1.5 years in response, Dr. Hong said.

The median duration of response was 10.9 months for patients with partial responses and 4 months for patients with stable disease.

Hong noted that response to sotorasib was seen across a range of co-mutational profiles, including several patients with four mutations in addition to KRAS p.G12C.
 

Other tumors, possible combinations

Among 42 patients with colorectal cancers bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation, 3 (7.1%) had a partial response. There were also partial responses seen in one patient each with melanoma and with appendiceal, endometrial, and pancreatic tumors.

“Overall, the results of this trial are very encouraging, showing the first step in ‘drugging the undruggable,’ ” Dr. LoRusso and Dr. Sebolt-Leopold wrote in their editorial.

They suggested that therapy with sotorasib may be improved by combining it with other agents that could target resistance to KRAS inhibition.

“A recent study showed that KRAS G12C colorectal cancer cells have higher basal epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity than NSCLC cells, leading to a rapid rebound in mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase signaling and resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition,” the editorialists wrote. “This observation is consistent with the weaker observed clinical activity of sotorasib in patients with colorectal cancer, a problem that may be addressed by combining it with an EGFR inhibitor [e.g., cetuximab], as seen preclinically.”

“I think this drug is being positioned not only in refractory disease, but we’re hoping to see it move upfront in non–small cell lung cancer, and we’re hoping to improve its efficacy in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Fakih said in an interview.

The study was sponsored by Amgen and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hong disclosed research/grant funding and an advisory/consulting role with Amgen and others. Dr. Fakih disclosed a speaking engagement for Amgen and consulting for and grant support from others. Dr. Lindsay disclosed consulting for Amgen and institutional research funding from the company and others. Dr. LoRusso disclosed fees from multiple companies, not including Amgen. Dr. Sebolt-Leopold disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

KRAS, one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer, has long been thought to be “undruggable,” but early results from a clinical trial of the experimental KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Amgen) suggest that at least one KRAS mutation common in non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) has a soft underbelly.

In the phase 1 CodeBreaK 100 trial, sotorasib, an investigational first-in-class inhibitor of the KRAS p.G12C mutation, showed encouraging activity against advanced NSCLC and other solid tumors.

Among patients with NSCLC, 19 (32.2%) of 59 had a confirmed objective response to sotorasib monotherapy, and 52 (88.1%) had disease control, reported David S. Hong, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

“Sotorasib also demonstrated durable disease control in heavily pretreated patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” said Dr. Hong.

He presented secondary efficacy endpoint results from the trial in an online presentation during the European Society of Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. The study was also published simultaneously online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial met its primary endpoint of safety of sotorasib, with no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatal adverse events, and treatment-emergent grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in less than 20% of patients.

“The safety profile is more favorable than that of other targeted agents, and I think the reason why you have a quite safe compound here is that sotorasib is very specific in its binding to KRAS G12C, and KRAS G12C is only present in the tumor,” coinvestigator Marwan G. Fakih, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. Fakih was co–lead author of the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A real “triumph”

Sotorasib is “a triumph of drug discovery,” commented Colin Lindsay, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant.

“We know that KRAS, over many years, over 3 decades, has been very difficult to target,” he said.

“The early development of KRAS G12C–targeted agents is just the beginning, lending hope that the ability to target not only other KRAS mutations but also other targets previously thought to be undruggable may be within reach,” write Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, from the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and Judith S. Sebolt-Leopold, PhD, from the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial.

The KRAS, which stands for Kristen rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue, p.G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form. The mutation has been identified in approximately 13% of NSCLC tumors, in 1% to 7% of colorectal cancers, and in other solid tumors.

But the mutation has been considered too difficult to target because of KRAS’ strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate (GTP), an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug binding sites.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form, Dr. Fakih explained.
 

Study details

The CodeBreaK 100 investigators enrolled patients with 13 different locally advanced or metastatic solid tumor types, all bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation.

The trial began with a dose-escalation phase, with two to four patients per cohort assigned to receive daily oral sotorasib at doses of 180, 360, 720, or 960 mg. The 960 mg dose was selected for expansion cohorts and for planned phase 2 studies, based on the safety profile and the lack of dose-limiting toxicities.

Hong and colleagues reported results for 129 patients treated in the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts, including 59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer and 28 with other tumor types, but focused primarily on patients with NSCLC.

After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, 59 patients with NSCLC had been treated, 3 at the 180 mg dose, 16 at 360 mg, 6 at 720 mg, and 34 at 960 mg. At the time of data cutoff in June of this year, 14 patients were still on treatment and 45 had discontinued, either from disease progression (35 patients), death (5), patient request (4) or adverse events (1).

As noted, there were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related fatalities reported.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 18.6% of patients. The only grade 4 treatment-related event was diarrhea, in one patient. Grade 3 events included elevated liver transaminases in nine patients, increased alkaline phosphatase in two, anemia in one, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase levels, decreased lymphocyte count, hepatitis, and hyponatremia in one patient each.

Dr. Fakih said that, given sotorasib’s high degree of specificity, it’s unclear what might be causing the observed adverse events.
 

Responses at all dose levels

The confirmed partial response rate was 32.2% for patients with NSCLC treated at all dose levels, and 35.3% for patients who received the 960 mg dose.

Among all NSCLC patients, and all treated at the highest 960-mg dose level, the stable disease rates were 55.9%. The respective disease control rates were 88.1% and 91.2%.

Tumor reductions occurred across all dose levels in patients with NSCLC. The median progression-free survival was 6.3 months.

Hong reported results for one patient, a 59-year-old man with the mutation who had experienced disease progression on five prior therapies including targeted agents, chemotherapy, and a checkpoint inhibitor, and had gamma-knife surgery for brain lesions.

This patient had a complete response in target lesions and a partial response overall, which included shrinkage of central nervous system metastases. He recently had progression in non-target lesions, after 1.5 years in response, Dr. Hong said.

The median duration of response was 10.9 months for patients with partial responses and 4 months for patients with stable disease.

Hong noted that response to sotorasib was seen across a range of co-mutational profiles, including several patients with four mutations in addition to KRAS p.G12C.
 

Other tumors, possible combinations

Among 42 patients with colorectal cancers bearing the KRAS p.G12C mutation, 3 (7.1%) had a partial response. There were also partial responses seen in one patient each with melanoma and with appendiceal, endometrial, and pancreatic tumors.

“Overall, the results of this trial are very encouraging, showing the first step in ‘drugging the undruggable,’ ” Dr. LoRusso and Dr. Sebolt-Leopold wrote in their editorial.

They suggested that therapy with sotorasib may be improved by combining it with other agents that could target resistance to KRAS inhibition.

“A recent study showed that KRAS G12C colorectal cancer cells have higher basal epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity than NSCLC cells, leading to a rapid rebound in mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase signaling and resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition,” the editorialists wrote. “This observation is consistent with the weaker observed clinical activity of sotorasib in patients with colorectal cancer, a problem that may be addressed by combining it with an EGFR inhibitor [e.g., cetuximab], as seen preclinically.”

“I think this drug is being positioned not only in refractory disease, but we’re hoping to see it move upfront in non–small cell lung cancer, and we’re hoping to improve its efficacy in colorectal cancer,” Dr. Fakih said in an interview.

The study was sponsored by Amgen and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hong disclosed research/grant funding and an advisory/consulting role with Amgen and others. Dr. Fakih disclosed a speaking engagement for Amgen and consulting for and grant support from others. Dr. Lindsay disclosed consulting for Amgen and institutional research funding from the company and others. Dr. LoRusso disclosed fees from multiple companies, not including Amgen. Dr. Sebolt-Leopold disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.