Lung Cancer

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung oligometastases nets similar safety and efficacy whether it is delivered in multiple fractions or just one fraction. This was among key findings of a randomized, phase 2 trial reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Most patients [with lung metastases] are treated with lifelong anticancer drug therapy only, with little prospect for long-term cancer control,” investigator Shankar Siva, MBBS, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said in a news briefing.

“However, some patients may have limited spread to the lungs and may be suitable for either surgery, which is an invasive approach, or SBRT, which is a noninvasive approach, with the aim to prolong long-term cancer control,” he added.
 

Patients and treatment

Dr. Siva and colleagues enrolled in their phase 2 trial (SAFRON II/TROG 13.01) 90 patients from 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand.

All patients had one to three lung metastases (from nonhematologic malignancies) that measured up to 5 cm in diameter and were located in the periphery.

The most common primaries were colorectal cancer (47%), lung cancer (11%), and kidney cancer (10%). The trial required that all primary and extrathoracic disease had been definitively treated.

The patients were randomized evenly to lung SBRT delivered with a single-fraction regimen (28 Gy in one fraction) or a multifraction regimen (48 Gy in four fractions) that netted the same biological equivalent dose.
 

Safety and efficacy

The two treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to any-grade toxicities at 1 year, with the exception of higher rates of esophagitis and radiation dermatitis in the multifraction group, Dr. Siva reported.

The rate of grade 3 or worse toxicity at 1 year – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 5% with the single fraction and 3% with multiple fractions, with overlapping 80% confidence intervals, meeting the prespecified endpoint for acceptable toxicity.

The single-fraction group had two grade 3 events that resolved with intervention and no grade 4-5 events. The multifraction group had a single grade 5 event (fatal pneumonitis in a patient with underlying interstitial lung disease) and no grade 3-4 events.

The single-fraction and multifraction groups were also similar at 1 year on rates of freedom from local failure (93% and 95%, respectively), disease-free survival (59% and 60%, respectively), and overall survival (95% and 93%, respectively), with overlapping 95% CIs for each outcome.

Analyses of quality of life and cost-effectiveness are ongoing.
 

Applying the results: Useful in a pandemic?

“Single-session SBRT is safe, convenient, and noninvasive, and appears to be effective, to date, for lung secondaries. This approach may be considered as a one-stop, knockout type of approach for patients who have one to three metastases to the lung,” Dr. Siva proposed.

“These findings may have implications for treatment selection in a resource-constrained environment, such as the current global pandemic, when trying to reduce footfall or thoroughfare within a radiotherapy department, and it’s quite a convenient approach for patients,” he added.
 

“Stereotactic radiation has an obvious advantage over conventional radiation in several ways and may have a special advantage in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce exposure to patients and our hospital personnel,” agreed news briefing moderator Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

However, use of stereotactic techniques remains controversial because they require technical precision and additional resources for planning and quality assurance, and they are often more expensive than conventional radiation therapy, she noted. Therefore, there must be evidence to justify their use in a palliative or metastatic setting.

The current trial is noteworthy for pushing the SBRT efficiency envelope, according to Dr. Yom.

“These findings are going to be confirmed by the study team with further follow-up at 3 years,” she pointed out. “If the findings of this study are maintained, it shows that patients with up to three metastatic tumors in the lung can have their treatment given in an extremely efficient manner over one session, which saves them time and hospital resources, and could be very significant to patients’ quality of life.”

The trial is sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Siva disclosed relationships with Varian Industries, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Reflexion. Dr. Yom disclosed no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Siva S et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 5.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung oligometastases nets similar safety and efficacy whether it is delivered in multiple fractions or just one fraction. This was among key findings of a randomized, phase 2 trial reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Most patients [with lung metastases] are treated with lifelong anticancer drug therapy only, with little prospect for long-term cancer control,” investigator Shankar Siva, MBBS, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said in a news briefing.

“However, some patients may have limited spread to the lungs and may be suitable for either surgery, which is an invasive approach, or SBRT, which is a noninvasive approach, with the aim to prolong long-term cancer control,” he added.
 

Patients and treatment

Dr. Siva and colleagues enrolled in their phase 2 trial (SAFRON II/TROG 13.01) 90 patients from 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand.

All patients had one to three lung metastases (from nonhematologic malignancies) that measured up to 5 cm in diameter and were located in the periphery.

The most common primaries were colorectal cancer (47%), lung cancer (11%), and kidney cancer (10%). The trial required that all primary and extrathoracic disease had been definitively treated.

The patients were randomized evenly to lung SBRT delivered with a single-fraction regimen (28 Gy in one fraction) or a multifraction regimen (48 Gy in four fractions) that netted the same biological equivalent dose.
 

Safety and efficacy

The two treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to any-grade toxicities at 1 year, with the exception of higher rates of esophagitis and radiation dermatitis in the multifraction group, Dr. Siva reported.

The rate of grade 3 or worse toxicity at 1 year – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 5% with the single fraction and 3% with multiple fractions, with overlapping 80% confidence intervals, meeting the prespecified endpoint for acceptable toxicity.

The single-fraction group had two grade 3 events that resolved with intervention and no grade 4-5 events. The multifraction group had a single grade 5 event (fatal pneumonitis in a patient with underlying interstitial lung disease) and no grade 3-4 events.

The single-fraction and multifraction groups were also similar at 1 year on rates of freedom from local failure (93% and 95%, respectively), disease-free survival (59% and 60%, respectively), and overall survival (95% and 93%, respectively), with overlapping 95% CIs for each outcome.

Analyses of quality of life and cost-effectiveness are ongoing.
 

Applying the results: Useful in a pandemic?

“Single-session SBRT is safe, convenient, and noninvasive, and appears to be effective, to date, for lung secondaries. This approach may be considered as a one-stop, knockout type of approach for patients who have one to three metastases to the lung,” Dr. Siva proposed.

“These findings may have implications for treatment selection in a resource-constrained environment, such as the current global pandemic, when trying to reduce footfall or thoroughfare within a radiotherapy department, and it’s quite a convenient approach for patients,” he added.
 

“Stereotactic radiation has an obvious advantage over conventional radiation in several ways and may have a special advantage in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce exposure to patients and our hospital personnel,” agreed news briefing moderator Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

However, use of stereotactic techniques remains controversial because they require technical precision and additional resources for planning and quality assurance, and they are often more expensive than conventional radiation therapy, she noted. Therefore, there must be evidence to justify their use in a palliative or metastatic setting.

The current trial is noteworthy for pushing the SBRT efficiency envelope, according to Dr. Yom.

“These findings are going to be confirmed by the study team with further follow-up at 3 years,” she pointed out. “If the findings of this study are maintained, it shows that patients with up to three metastatic tumors in the lung can have their treatment given in an extremely efficient manner over one session, which saves them time and hospital resources, and could be very significant to patients’ quality of life.”

The trial is sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Siva disclosed relationships with Varian Industries, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Reflexion. Dr. Yom disclosed no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Siva S et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 5.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung oligometastases nets similar safety and efficacy whether it is delivered in multiple fractions or just one fraction. This was among key findings of a randomized, phase 2 trial reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Most patients [with lung metastases] are treated with lifelong anticancer drug therapy only, with little prospect for long-term cancer control,” investigator Shankar Siva, MBBS, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said in a news briefing.

“However, some patients may have limited spread to the lungs and may be suitable for either surgery, which is an invasive approach, or SBRT, which is a noninvasive approach, with the aim to prolong long-term cancer control,” he added.
 

Patients and treatment

Dr. Siva and colleagues enrolled in their phase 2 trial (SAFRON II/TROG 13.01) 90 patients from 13 centers in Australia and New Zealand.

All patients had one to three lung metastases (from nonhematologic malignancies) that measured up to 5 cm in diameter and were located in the periphery.

The most common primaries were colorectal cancer (47%), lung cancer (11%), and kidney cancer (10%). The trial required that all primary and extrathoracic disease had been definitively treated.

The patients were randomized evenly to lung SBRT delivered with a single-fraction regimen (28 Gy in one fraction) or a multifraction regimen (48 Gy in four fractions) that netted the same biological equivalent dose.
 

Safety and efficacy

The two treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to any-grade toxicities at 1 year, with the exception of higher rates of esophagitis and radiation dermatitis in the multifraction group, Dr. Siva reported.

The rate of grade 3 or worse toxicity at 1 year – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 5% with the single fraction and 3% with multiple fractions, with overlapping 80% confidence intervals, meeting the prespecified endpoint for acceptable toxicity.

The single-fraction group had two grade 3 events that resolved with intervention and no grade 4-5 events. The multifraction group had a single grade 5 event (fatal pneumonitis in a patient with underlying interstitial lung disease) and no grade 3-4 events.

The single-fraction and multifraction groups were also similar at 1 year on rates of freedom from local failure (93% and 95%, respectively), disease-free survival (59% and 60%, respectively), and overall survival (95% and 93%, respectively), with overlapping 95% CIs for each outcome.

Analyses of quality of life and cost-effectiveness are ongoing.
 

Applying the results: Useful in a pandemic?

“Single-session SBRT is safe, convenient, and noninvasive, and appears to be effective, to date, for lung secondaries. This approach may be considered as a one-stop, knockout type of approach for patients who have one to three metastases to the lung,” Dr. Siva proposed.

“These findings may have implications for treatment selection in a resource-constrained environment, such as the current global pandemic, when trying to reduce footfall or thoroughfare within a radiotherapy department, and it’s quite a convenient approach for patients,” he added.
 

“Stereotactic radiation has an obvious advantage over conventional radiation in several ways and may have a special advantage in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce exposure to patients and our hospital personnel,” agreed news briefing moderator Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

However, use of stereotactic techniques remains controversial because they require technical precision and additional resources for planning and quality assurance, and they are often more expensive than conventional radiation therapy, she noted. Therefore, there must be evidence to justify their use in a palliative or metastatic setting.

The current trial is noteworthy for pushing the SBRT efficiency envelope, according to Dr. Yom.

“These findings are going to be confirmed by the study team with further follow-up at 3 years,” she pointed out. “If the findings of this study are maintained, it shows that patients with up to three metastatic tumors in the lung can have their treatment given in an extremely efficient manner over one session, which saves them time and hospital resources, and could be very significant to patients’ quality of life.”

The trial is sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Siva disclosed relationships with Varian Industries, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Reflexion. Dr. Yom disclosed no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Siva S et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 5.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.

A national effort to perform genotype drug matching across cancer types shows the value of next-generation sequencing and provides a roadmap for future precision oncology trials, according to experts.

Massachusetts General Hospital

The effort is the National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. For this study, researchers performed next-generation sequencing on tumor biopsy specimens to identify therapeutically actionable molecular alterations in patients with “underexplored” cancer types.

The trial included 5,954 patients with cancers that had progressed on standard treatments or rare cancers for which there is no standard treatment. If actionable alterations were found in these patients, they could receive new drugs in development that showed promise in other clinical trials or drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat at least one cancer type.

Data newly reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that 37.6% of patients had alterations that could be matched to targeted drugs, and 17.8% of patients were assigned to targeted treatment. Multiple actionable tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% of specimens, and resistance-conferring mutations were seen in 71.3% of specimens.

“The bottom line from this report is that next-generation sequencing is an efficient way to identify both approved and promising investigational therapies. For this reason, it should be considered standard of care for patients with advanced cancers,” said study chair Keith T. Flaherty, MD, director of the Henri and Belinda Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston.

“This study sets the benchmark for the ‘actionability’ of next-generation sequencing,” Dr. Flaherty added. “We expect this number [of actionable alterations] will continue to rise steadily as further advances are made in the development of therapies that target some of the genetic alterations for which we could not offer treatment options in NCI-MATCH.”
 

Relapsed/refractory vs. primary tumors

The NCI-MATCH researchers focused on the most commonly found genetic alterations and performed biopsies at study entry to provide the most accurate picture of the genetic landscape of relapsed/refractory cancer patients. That makes this cohort distinct from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a database of patients with mostly untreated primary tumors, and other published cohorts that include genetic analysis of primary tumors and biopsies from the time of initial metastatic recurrence.

The researchers compared the tumor gene makeup of NCI-MATCH and TCGA patients with seven cancer types – breast, bile duct, cervix, colorectal, lung, pancreas, and prostate.

ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

“Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively minimal change in the genetic alterations found in these relapsed/refractory patients, compared to primary tumors,” Dr. Flaherty said. “These findings suggest that it is very reasonable to perform next-generation sequencing at the time of initial metastatic cancer diagnosis and to rely on those findings for the purposes of considering FDA-approved therapies and clinical trial participation.”
 

Multiple alterations and resistance

The complex genetics of cancers has led researchers to explore combinations of targeted and other therapies to address multiple defects at the same time.

“Not surprisingly, the most common collision of multiple genetic alterations within the same tumor was in the commonly altered tumor suppressor genes: TP53, APC, and PTEN,” Dr. Flaherty said.

“An increasing body of evidence supports a role for loss-of-function alterations in these genes to confer resistance to many targeted therapies,” he added. “While we don’t have targeted therapies yet established to directly counter this form of therapeutic resistance, we hypothesize that various types of combination therapy may be able to indirectly undercut resistance and enhance the benefit of many targeted therapies.”

The NCI-MATCH researchers will continue to mine this large dataset to better understand the many small, genetically defined cancer subpopulations.

“We will continue to report the outcome of the individual treatment subprotocols, and combining this genetic analysis with those outcomes will likely inform the next clinical trials,” Dr. Flaherty said.
 

Actionable mutations make a difference

Precision oncology experts agree that NCI-MATCH results are impressive and add a fuller appreciation that actionable mutations make a clinical difference.

“This is a powerful, extremely well-designed study, a tour de force of collaborative science,” said Stephen Gruber, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Precision Medicine at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

“The future holds even more promise,” he added. “Our ability to interrogate the genomic landscape of cancer is improving rapidly. Tumor testing helps get the right drug to the right tumor faster than a guidelines-based approach from historical data of combination chemotherapy. This is a likely game changer for the way oncologists will practice in the future, especially as we learn more results of subset trials. The NCI-MATCH researchers have taken a laser-focused look at the current data, but we now know we can look far more comprehensively at genomic profiles of tumors.”

From the viewpoint of the practicing oncologist, co-occurring resistance mutations make a difference in defining what combinations are likely and, more importantly, less likely to be effective. “When we see two mutations and one is likely to confer resistance, we can make a choice to avoid a drug that is not likely to work,” Dr. Gruber said.

“The NCI-MATCH trial allows both approved and investigational agents, which expands the possibility of matching patients to newer agents. This is especially relevant if there are no FDA-approved drugs yet for some molecular aberrations,” said Lillian L. Siu, MD, a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. “This trial enables such evaluations under the auspice of a clinical trial to provide important knowledge.”

Both experts agree that in-depth biological interrogations of cancer will move the field of precision oncology forward. Dr. Gruber said that “studies have not yet fully addressed the power of germline genetic testing of DNA. Inherited susceptibility will drive therapeutic choices – for example, PARP inhibitors that access homologous recombination deficiency for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. We will learn more about treatment choices for those cancers.”

Dr. Siu added: “I truly believe that liquid biopsies [circulating tumor DNA] will help us perform target-drug matching in a less invasive way. We need to explore beyond the genome to look at the transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, and immunome, among others. It is likely that multiomic predictors are going to be able to identify more therapeutic options compared to single genomic predictors.”

Dr. Flaherty noted that all tumor samples from patients assigned to treatment are being subjected to whole-exome sequencing to further the discovery of the genetic features of responsive and nonresponsive tumors.

NCI-MATCH was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Flaherty disclosed relationships with Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, and many other companies. His coauthors disclosed many conflicts as well. Dr. Gruber is cofounder of Brogent International. Dr. Siu disclosed relationships with Agios, Treadwell Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03010.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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.

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.