Lung Cancer

Targeting TIGIT, an inhibitory receptor expressed on immune cells, could complement activity of anti–programmed death–ligand 1/PD-1 antibodies in patients with solid tumors, results of a phase 1 study suggest.

The combination of the anti-TIGIT antibody tiragolumab with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab was well tolerated and showed preliminary activity in the phase 1b portion of the study, according to investigator Johanna C. Bendell, MD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology in Nashville, Tenn.

Objective responses occurred mainly in chemoimmunotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive tumors. In an expansion cohort of 13 patients with PD-L1-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the confirmed overall response rate was 46%, with several responses demonstrating durability.

Dr. Bendell reported these results at the AACR virtual meeting II.

While several important research questions remain, the results in the lung cancer expansion cohort were encouraging, particularly in patients who were smokers and previous smokers, said invited discussant Michele Teng, PhD, of QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute in Brisbane, Australia.

“Although it was [a] small cohort, the data suggest promising duration of response in some of the patients [n = 4] who have been under study for more than 700 days,” Dr. Teng said.

Based on the preliminary safety and activity seen in this study, the combination of tiragolumab and atezolizumab is being evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 study, and a phase 3 study is recruiting.
 

Rationale, design, and safety

TIGIT is a novel inhibitory receptor expressed on multiple immune cells, especially CD8-positive T cells and natural killer cells, Dr. Bendell explained. She added that TIGIT is coexpressed with PD-1 on immune cells.

“Using anti-TIGIT antibodies to prevent TIGIT from binding, and cotargeting TIGIT and PD-L1, may restore antitumor response and enhance anti-PD-L1 effect,” Dr. Bendell said.

The phase 1 study Dr. Bendell presented, known as GO30103, was designed to evaluate tiragolumab as a single agent and in combination with atezolizumab in advanced solid tumors.

There were 24 patients in the phase 1a portion of GO30103, which was intended to determine the preliminary safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose of tiragolumab. There were 49 patients treated with tiragolumab plus atezolizumab in the phase 1b portion, which was intended to provide data on pharmacokinetics as well as preliminary antitumor activity of the combination.

No dose-limiting toxicities were seen in either cohort. The recommended phase 2 dose of tiragolumab was 600 mg every 3 weeks.

Tiragolumab was well tolerated in the phase 1a and 1b portions of the trial, according to Dr. Bendell.

“Immune-related adverse events were seen, but their incidence was not out of proportion to events seen with atezolizumab alone,” she said.

Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in one patient (4%) in the phase 1a portion of the trial and two patients (4%) in the phase 1b portion. There were no grade 5 adverse events related to treatment.

Efficacy and next steps

No objective responses were seen with tiragolumab monotherapy, although several patients did exhibit tumor reduction.

“We were not really expecting much single-agent activity of the anti-TIGIT drug,” Dr. Bendell said. “There’s some preclinical data that suggests that TIGIT may be more important as a single agent in earlier stages of cancer.”

In contrast, the combination of tiragolumab and atezolizumab resulted in several responses, including one in a patient with PD-L1-positive NSCLC who was previously treated with immunotherapy, according to Dr. Bendell.

The 13-patient expansion cohort of patients with PD-L1-positive NSCLC were treated at the recommended phase 2 dose of tiragolumab and atezolizumab. In these chemoimmunotherapy-naive patients, the overall response rate was 46%. Responses occurred in 6 of 13 patients and included 2 complete responses. Four patients had stable disease, so the disease control rate was 85% (11/13).

Based on that expansion cohort, a randomized, phase 2 study called CITYSCAPE was initiated. Results of CITYSCAPE were recently presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

In that study, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab improved the overall response rate and progression-free survival when compared with placebo plus atezolizumab. More substantial improvement was seen in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores of 50% or greater.

The activity and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab will be confirmed in the ongoing SKYSCRAPER-01 trial (NCT04294810), a phase 3 study of first-line treatment in patients with NSCLC and a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater, according to investigators.

The phase 1 study presented by Dr. Bendell was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Bendell disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Five Prime, Lilly, and other companies.
 

SOURCE: Bendell JC et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT302.

Targeting TIGIT, an inhibitory receptor expressed on immune cells, could complement activity of anti–programmed death–ligand 1/PD-1 antibodies in patients with solid tumors, results of a phase 1 study suggest.

The combination of the anti-TIGIT antibody tiragolumab with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab was well tolerated and showed preliminary activity in the phase 1b portion of the study, according to investigator Johanna C. Bendell, MD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology in Nashville, Tenn.

Objective responses occurred mainly in chemoimmunotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive tumors. In an expansion cohort of 13 patients with PD-L1-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the confirmed overall response rate was 46%, with several responses demonstrating durability.

Dr. Bendell reported these results at the AACR virtual meeting II.

While several important research questions remain, the results in the lung cancer expansion cohort were encouraging, particularly in patients who were smokers and previous smokers, said invited discussant Michele Teng, PhD, of QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute in Brisbane, Australia.

“Although it was [a] small cohort, the data suggest promising duration of response in some of the patients [n = 4] who have been under study for more than 700 days,” Dr. Teng said.

Based on the preliminary safety and activity seen in this study, the combination of tiragolumab and atezolizumab is being evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 study, and a phase 3 study is recruiting.
 

Rationale, design, and safety

TIGIT is a novel inhibitory receptor expressed on multiple immune cells, especially CD8-positive T cells and natural killer cells, Dr. Bendell explained. She added that TIGIT is coexpressed with PD-1 on immune cells.

“Using anti-TIGIT antibodies to prevent TIGIT from binding, and cotargeting TIGIT and PD-L1, may restore antitumor response and enhance anti-PD-L1 effect,” Dr. Bendell said.

The phase 1 study Dr. Bendell presented, known as GO30103, was designed to evaluate tiragolumab as a single agent and in combination with atezolizumab in advanced solid tumors.

There were 24 patients in the phase 1a portion of GO30103, which was intended to determine the preliminary safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose of tiragolumab. There were 49 patients treated with tiragolumab plus atezolizumab in the phase 1b portion, which was intended to provide data on pharmacokinetics as well as preliminary antitumor activity of the combination.

No dose-limiting toxicities were seen in either cohort. The recommended phase 2 dose of tiragolumab was 600 mg every 3 weeks.

Tiragolumab was well tolerated in the phase 1a and 1b portions of the trial, according to Dr. Bendell.

“Immune-related adverse events were seen, but their incidence was not out of proportion to events seen with atezolizumab alone,” she said.

Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in one patient (4%) in the phase 1a portion of the trial and two patients (4%) in the phase 1b portion. There were no grade 5 adverse events related to treatment.

Efficacy and next steps

No objective responses were seen with tiragolumab monotherapy, although several patients did exhibit tumor reduction.

“We were not really expecting much single-agent activity of the anti-TIGIT drug,” Dr. Bendell said. “There’s some preclinical data that suggests that TIGIT may be more important as a single agent in earlier stages of cancer.”

In contrast, the combination of tiragolumab and atezolizumab resulted in several responses, including one in a patient with PD-L1-positive NSCLC who was previously treated with immunotherapy, according to Dr. Bendell.

The 13-patient expansion cohort of patients with PD-L1-positive NSCLC were treated at the recommended phase 2 dose of tiragolumab and atezolizumab. In these chemoimmunotherapy-naive patients, the overall response rate was 46%. Responses occurred in 6 of 13 patients and included 2 complete responses. Four patients had stable disease, so the disease control rate was 85% (11/13).

Based on that expansion cohort, a randomized, phase 2 study called CITYSCAPE was initiated. Results of CITYSCAPE were recently presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

In that study, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab improved the overall response rate and progression-free survival when compared with placebo plus atezolizumab. More substantial improvement was seen in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores of 50% or greater.

The activity and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab will be confirmed in the ongoing SKYSCRAPER-01 trial (NCT04294810), a phase 3 study of first-line treatment in patients with NSCLC and a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater, according to investigators.

The phase 1 study presented by Dr. Bendell was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Bendell disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Five Prime, Lilly, and other companies.
 

SOURCE: Bendell JC et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT302.

Targeting TIGIT, an inhibitory receptor expressed on immune cells, could complement activity of anti–programmed death–ligand 1/PD-1 antibodies in patients with solid tumors, results of a phase 1 study suggest.

The combination of the anti-TIGIT antibody tiragolumab with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab was well tolerated and showed preliminary activity in the phase 1b portion of the study, according to investigator Johanna C. Bendell, MD, of Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology in Nashville, Tenn.

Objective responses occurred mainly in chemoimmunotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive tumors. In an expansion cohort of 13 patients with PD-L1-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the confirmed overall response rate was 46%, with several responses demonstrating durability.

Dr. Bendell reported these results at the AACR virtual meeting II.

While several important research questions remain, the results in the lung cancer expansion cohort were encouraging, particularly in patients who were smokers and previous smokers, said invited discussant Michele Teng, PhD, of QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute in Brisbane, Australia.

“Although it was [a] small cohort, the data suggest promising duration of response in some of the patients [n = 4] who have been under study for more than 700 days,” Dr. Teng said.

Based on the preliminary safety and activity seen in this study, the combination of tiragolumab and atezolizumab is being evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 study, and a phase 3 study is recruiting.
 

Rationale, design, and safety

TIGIT is a novel inhibitory receptor expressed on multiple immune cells, especially CD8-positive T cells and natural killer cells, Dr. Bendell explained. She added that TIGIT is coexpressed with PD-1 on immune cells.

“Using anti-TIGIT antibodies to prevent TIGIT from binding, and cotargeting TIGIT and PD-L1, may restore antitumor response and enhance anti-PD-L1 effect,” Dr. Bendell said.

The phase 1 study Dr. Bendell presented, known as GO30103, was designed to evaluate tiragolumab as a single agent and in combination with atezolizumab in advanced solid tumors.

There were 24 patients in the phase 1a portion of GO30103, which was intended to determine the preliminary safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose of tiragolumab. There were 49 patients treated with tiragolumab plus atezolizumab in the phase 1b portion, which was intended to provide data on pharmacokinetics as well as preliminary antitumor activity of the combination.

No dose-limiting toxicities were seen in either cohort. The recommended phase 2 dose of tiragolumab was 600 mg every 3 weeks.

Tiragolumab was well tolerated in the phase 1a and 1b portions of the trial, according to Dr. Bendell.

“Immune-related adverse events were seen, but their incidence was not out of proportion to events seen with atezolizumab alone,” she said.

Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in one patient (4%) in the phase 1a portion of the trial and two patients (4%) in the phase 1b portion. There were no grade 5 adverse events related to treatment.

Efficacy and next steps

No objective responses were seen with tiragolumab monotherapy, although several patients did exhibit tumor reduction.

“We were not really expecting much single-agent activity of the anti-TIGIT drug,” Dr. Bendell said. “There’s some preclinical data that suggests that TIGIT may be more important as a single agent in earlier stages of cancer.”

In contrast, the combination of tiragolumab and atezolizumab resulted in several responses, including one in a patient with PD-L1-positive NSCLC who was previously treated with immunotherapy, according to Dr. Bendell.

The 13-patient expansion cohort of patients with PD-L1-positive NSCLC were treated at the recommended phase 2 dose of tiragolumab and atezolizumab. In these chemoimmunotherapy-naive patients, the overall response rate was 46%. Responses occurred in 6 of 13 patients and included 2 complete responses. Four patients had stable disease, so the disease control rate was 85% (11/13).

Based on that expansion cohort, a randomized, phase 2 study called CITYSCAPE was initiated. Results of CITYSCAPE were recently presented as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

In that study, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab improved the overall response rate and progression-free survival when compared with placebo plus atezolizumab. More substantial improvement was seen in the subgroup of patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores of 50% or greater.

The activity and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab will be confirmed in the ongoing SKYSCRAPER-01 trial (NCT04294810), a phase 3 study of first-line treatment in patients with NSCLC and a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater, according to investigators.

The phase 1 study presented by Dr. Bendell was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Bendell disclosed relationships with Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Five Prime, Lilly, and other companies.
 

SOURCE: Bendell JC et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT302.

Past treatment may affect the risk of death among patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19, according to data from the TERAVOLT registry.

Prior treatment with steroids, anticoagulants, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy were all associated with an increased risk of death, but prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy alone were not.

At the same time, there were no COVID-19–directed treatments that seemed to affect the risk of death.

“When we look at therapies administered to treat COVID-19 … including anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, we found that no particular therapy was associated with increased chance of recovery from COVID-19,” said Leora Horn, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Horn presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

About TERAVOLT

The TERAVOLT registry is the brainchild of Marina Garassino, MD, of the National Cancer Institute of Milan. On March 15, Dr. Garassino emailed colleagues around the world with the idea of starting the registry. Within 5 days, the final protocol was approved, and the first patient was entered onto TERAVOLT.

In creating a registry, Dr. Garassino and colleagues wanted to “determine the demographic factors, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, and therapies that place patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 most at risk for hospitalization and death,” Dr. Horn said.

Other goals of the registry are “to understand the clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies who are infected by SARS-CoV-2, to provide practitioners with real-time data on therapeutic strategies that may impact survival, [and] to evaluate the long-term impact on cancer outcomes related to care adjustments and delays in patients with thoracic malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Garassino presented the first analysis of TERAVOLT data at the AACR virtual meeting I in April. Results were recently published in The Lancet Oncology as well. That analysis included 200 patients, 98% of whom were from Europe, and the median follow-up was 15 days.

Baseline characteristics and outcomes

Dr. Horn’s updated analysis included 400 patients with a median follow-up of 33 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. The data encompassed patients from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

Of the 400 patients, 169 had recovered, 141 had died, and 118 were still in the hospital at the time of analysis. In all, 334 patients (78.3%) required a hospital admission, and 33 (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU. The median length of hospitalization was 10 days.

Across the three outcome groups (recovered, died, ongoing), the median age was 67-70 years. Most patients had non–small cell lung cancer (74.5%-81.9%), and most had stage IV disease (61.4%-76.8%).

A majority of patients were male (63.3%-70.2%), and most were current or former smokers (77.5%-86.9%). The median body mass index was 24-25 kg/m², and 35%-46.4% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0.

Most patients (82.2%-90.7%) had COVID-19 diagnosed via real-time polymerase chain reaction, although some patients were diagnosed via clinical findings alone (3.1%-5%).

“[R]egardless of outcome, the most common presenting symptom was fever, cough, or dyspnea,” Dr. Horn noted.

As for complications of COVID-19, 71% of patients who died had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 49.6% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 14.9% had multiorgan failure, 12.1% had sepsis, and 5.7% had coagulopathy.

Among recovered patients, 59% had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 4.1% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 3% had coagulopathy, 0.6% had sepsis, and none had multiorgan failure.

Patients who recovered were more likely to have no comorbidities at baseline, and 31.2% of patients who died had at least one comorbidity. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular disease, diabetes, and renal insufficiencies.
 

Prior treatments and COVID therapy

Among patients who died, 33.4% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 27% were on anticoagulants, and 23.4% were on steroids (the equivalent of at least 10 mg of prednisone per day) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Among recovered patients, 20.7% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 18.3% were on anticoagulants, and 14.2% were on steroids at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

“When we look at cancer therapy in the last 3 months, we can see that, regardless of outcome, the majority of patients had either not been treated or were on first-line therapy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis,” Dr. Horn noted.

Among patients who died, 46.8% had received chemotherapy, 22% had received immunotherapy, 12.8% had received targeted therapy, and 9.2% had received radiotherapy.

Among recovered patients, 33.7% had received chemotherapy, 26.6% had received immunotherapy, 19.5% had received targeted therapy, and 14.2% had received radiotherapy.

COVID-19–directed treatments included anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, steroids, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine. Use of these therapies was similar among patients who recovered and patients who died.
 

Factors associated with death

In all, 79.4% of deaths were attributed to COVID-19, 10.6% were attributed to cancer, 8.5% were attributed to cancer and COVID-19, and 1.4% of deaths had an unknown cause.

In a univariate analysis, baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of death were age of 65 years or older (P = .0033), one or more comorbidity (P = .0351), and ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .0001). Therapies associated with an increased risk of death in a univariate analysis included steroids (P = .0186), anticoagulation (P = .0562), and either chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (P = .0256).

In a multivariate analysis, age over 65 years (P = .018), ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .001), prior use of steroids (P = .052), and receipt of chemotherapy alone or in combination with immunotherapy (P = .025) were all associated with an increased risk of death.

“There is no impact of gender [sex], body mass index, smoking status, stage, or type of cancer on risk of death,” Dr. Horn said. “Therapy administered to treat COVID-19 is not significantly associated with outcome.”

“The impact of COVID-19 infection on cancer management and outcomes must be evaluated,” she added. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analysis and studies planned to look at patient and provider perception of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on cancer care.”

Strengths and limitations

There are several limitations to findings from the TERAVOLT registry, according to invited discussant Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan.

He said the results are limited by the differences in triage decisions between European and other centers, the fact that most patients in TERAVOLT were hospitalized, the high proportion of patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, and methods of data collection and analysis.

“There is no real-time data capture, no auditing, no standardized outcome definitions, and CRFs [case report forms] had a lot of limitations,” Dr. Curigliano said. “We have multiple biases, including selection bias, recall bias, confounding by indication, and changes in practice or disease evolution.”

Dr. Curigliano noted, however, that TERAVOLT is the largest real-world dataset of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies.

Furthermore, results from TERAVOLT correspond to results from the CCC-19 registry. Data from both registries suggest that older age, the presence of comorbidities, higher ECOG performances status, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other therapies are associated with increased mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19.

The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Horn disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Curigliano disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, and other pharmaceutical companies.
 

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Horn L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA111.

Past treatment may affect the risk of death among patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19, according to data from the TERAVOLT registry.

Prior treatment with steroids, anticoagulants, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy were all associated with an increased risk of death, but prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy alone were not.

At the same time, there were no COVID-19–directed treatments that seemed to affect the risk of death.

“When we look at therapies administered to treat COVID-19 … including anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, we found that no particular therapy was associated with increased chance of recovery from COVID-19,” said Leora Horn, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Horn presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

About TERAVOLT

The TERAVOLT registry is the brainchild of Marina Garassino, MD, of the National Cancer Institute of Milan. On March 15, Dr. Garassino emailed colleagues around the world with the idea of starting the registry. Within 5 days, the final protocol was approved, and the first patient was entered onto TERAVOLT.

In creating a registry, Dr. Garassino and colleagues wanted to “determine the demographic factors, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, and therapies that place patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 most at risk for hospitalization and death,” Dr. Horn said.

Other goals of the registry are “to understand the clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies who are infected by SARS-CoV-2, to provide practitioners with real-time data on therapeutic strategies that may impact survival, [and] to evaluate the long-term impact on cancer outcomes related to care adjustments and delays in patients with thoracic malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Garassino presented the first analysis of TERAVOLT data at the AACR virtual meeting I in April. Results were recently published in The Lancet Oncology as well. That analysis included 200 patients, 98% of whom were from Europe, and the median follow-up was 15 days.

Baseline characteristics and outcomes

Dr. Horn’s updated analysis included 400 patients with a median follow-up of 33 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. The data encompassed patients from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

Of the 400 patients, 169 had recovered, 141 had died, and 118 were still in the hospital at the time of analysis. In all, 334 patients (78.3%) required a hospital admission, and 33 (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU. The median length of hospitalization was 10 days.

Across the three outcome groups (recovered, died, ongoing), the median age was 67-70 years. Most patients had non–small cell lung cancer (74.5%-81.9%), and most had stage IV disease (61.4%-76.8%).

A majority of patients were male (63.3%-70.2%), and most were current or former smokers (77.5%-86.9%). The median body mass index was 24-25 kg/m², and 35%-46.4% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0.

Most patients (82.2%-90.7%) had COVID-19 diagnosed via real-time polymerase chain reaction, although some patients were diagnosed via clinical findings alone (3.1%-5%).

“[R]egardless of outcome, the most common presenting symptom was fever, cough, or dyspnea,” Dr. Horn noted.

As for complications of COVID-19, 71% of patients who died had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 49.6% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 14.9% had multiorgan failure, 12.1% had sepsis, and 5.7% had coagulopathy.

Among recovered patients, 59% had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 4.1% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 3% had coagulopathy, 0.6% had sepsis, and none had multiorgan failure.

Patients who recovered were more likely to have no comorbidities at baseline, and 31.2% of patients who died had at least one comorbidity. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular disease, diabetes, and renal insufficiencies.
 

Prior treatments and COVID therapy

Among patients who died, 33.4% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 27% were on anticoagulants, and 23.4% were on steroids (the equivalent of at least 10 mg of prednisone per day) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Among recovered patients, 20.7% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 18.3% were on anticoagulants, and 14.2% were on steroids at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

“When we look at cancer therapy in the last 3 months, we can see that, regardless of outcome, the majority of patients had either not been treated or were on first-line therapy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis,” Dr. Horn noted.

Among patients who died, 46.8% had received chemotherapy, 22% had received immunotherapy, 12.8% had received targeted therapy, and 9.2% had received radiotherapy.

Among recovered patients, 33.7% had received chemotherapy, 26.6% had received immunotherapy, 19.5% had received targeted therapy, and 14.2% had received radiotherapy.

COVID-19–directed treatments included anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, steroids, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine. Use of these therapies was similar among patients who recovered and patients who died.
 

Factors associated with death

In all, 79.4% of deaths were attributed to COVID-19, 10.6% were attributed to cancer, 8.5% were attributed to cancer and COVID-19, and 1.4% of deaths had an unknown cause.

In a univariate analysis, baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of death were age of 65 years or older (P = .0033), one or more comorbidity (P = .0351), and ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .0001). Therapies associated with an increased risk of death in a univariate analysis included steroids (P = .0186), anticoagulation (P = .0562), and either chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (P = .0256).

In a multivariate analysis, age over 65 years (P = .018), ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .001), prior use of steroids (P = .052), and receipt of chemotherapy alone or in combination with immunotherapy (P = .025) were all associated with an increased risk of death.

“There is no impact of gender [sex], body mass index, smoking status, stage, or type of cancer on risk of death,” Dr. Horn said. “Therapy administered to treat COVID-19 is not significantly associated with outcome.”

“The impact of COVID-19 infection on cancer management and outcomes must be evaluated,” she added. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analysis and studies planned to look at patient and provider perception of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on cancer care.”

Strengths and limitations

There are several limitations to findings from the TERAVOLT registry, according to invited discussant Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan.

He said the results are limited by the differences in triage decisions between European and other centers, the fact that most patients in TERAVOLT were hospitalized, the high proportion of patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, and methods of data collection and analysis.

“There is no real-time data capture, no auditing, no standardized outcome definitions, and CRFs [case report forms] had a lot of limitations,” Dr. Curigliano said. “We have multiple biases, including selection bias, recall bias, confounding by indication, and changes in practice or disease evolution.”

Dr. Curigliano noted, however, that TERAVOLT is the largest real-world dataset of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies.

Furthermore, results from TERAVOLT correspond to results from the CCC-19 registry. Data from both registries suggest that older age, the presence of comorbidities, higher ECOG performances status, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other therapies are associated with increased mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19.

The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Horn disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Curigliano disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, and other pharmaceutical companies.
 

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Horn L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA111.

Past treatment may affect the risk of death among patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19, according to data from the TERAVOLT registry.

Prior treatment with steroids, anticoagulants, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy were all associated with an increased risk of death, but prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy alone were not.

At the same time, there were no COVID-19–directed treatments that seemed to affect the risk of death.

“When we look at therapies administered to treat COVID-19 … including anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, we found that no particular therapy was associated with increased chance of recovery from COVID-19,” said Leora Horn, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Horn presented these findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
 

About TERAVOLT

The TERAVOLT registry is the brainchild of Marina Garassino, MD, of the National Cancer Institute of Milan. On March 15, Dr. Garassino emailed colleagues around the world with the idea of starting the registry. Within 5 days, the final protocol was approved, and the first patient was entered onto TERAVOLT.

In creating a registry, Dr. Garassino and colleagues wanted to “determine the demographic factors, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, and therapies that place patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 most at risk for hospitalization and death,” Dr. Horn said.

Other goals of the registry are “to understand the clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies who are infected by SARS-CoV-2, to provide practitioners with real-time data on therapeutic strategies that may impact survival, [and] to evaluate the long-term impact on cancer outcomes related to care adjustments and delays in patients with thoracic malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Garassino presented the first analysis of TERAVOLT data at the AACR virtual meeting I in April. Results were recently published in The Lancet Oncology as well. That analysis included 200 patients, 98% of whom were from Europe, and the median follow-up was 15 days.

Baseline characteristics and outcomes

Dr. Horn’s updated analysis included 400 patients with a median follow-up of 33 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. The data encompassed patients from North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

Of the 400 patients, 169 had recovered, 141 had died, and 118 were still in the hospital at the time of analysis. In all, 334 patients (78.3%) required a hospital admission, and 33 (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU. The median length of hospitalization was 10 days.

Across the three outcome groups (recovered, died, ongoing), the median age was 67-70 years. Most patients had non–small cell lung cancer (74.5%-81.9%), and most had stage IV disease (61.4%-76.8%).

A majority of patients were male (63.3%-70.2%), and most were current or former smokers (77.5%-86.9%). The median body mass index was 24-25 kg/m², and 35%-46.4% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0.

Most patients (82.2%-90.7%) had COVID-19 diagnosed via real-time polymerase chain reaction, although some patients were diagnosed via clinical findings alone (3.1%-5%).

“[R]egardless of outcome, the most common presenting symptom was fever, cough, or dyspnea,” Dr. Horn noted.

As for complications of COVID-19, 71% of patients who died had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 49.6% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 14.9% had multiorgan failure, 12.1% had sepsis, and 5.7% had coagulopathy.

Among recovered patients, 59% had pneumonitis/pneumonia, 4.1% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, 3% had coagulopathy, 0.6% had sepsis, and none had multiorgan failure.

Patients who recovered were more likely to have no comorbidities at baseline, and 31.2% of patients who died had at least one comorbidity. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, vascular disease, diabetes, and renal insufficiencies.
 

Prior treatments and COVID therapy

Among patients who died, 33.4% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 27% were on anticoagulants, and 23.4% were on steroids (the equivalent of at least 10 mg of prednisone per day) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Among recovered patients, 20.7% were on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 18.3% were on anticoagulants, and 14.2% were on steroids at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis.

“When we look at cancer therapy in the last 3 months, we can see that, regardless of outcome, the majority of patients had either not been treated or were on first-line therapy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis,” Dr. Horn noted.

Among patients who died, 46.8% had received chemotherapy, 22% had received immunotherapy, 12.8% had received targeted therapy, and 9.2% had received radiotherapy.

Among recovered patients, 33.7% had received chemotherapy, 26.6% had received immunotherapy, 19.5% had received targeted therapy, and 14.2% had received radiotherapy.

COVID-19–directed treatments included anticoagulation, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, steroids, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine. Use of these therapies was similar among patients who recovered and patients who died.
 

Factors associated with death

In all, 79.4% of deaths were attributed to COVID-19, 10.6% were attributed to cancer, 8.5% were attributed to cancer and COVID-19, and 1.4% of deaths had an unknown cause.

In a univariate analysis, baseline characteristics associated with an increased risk of death were age of 65 years or older (P = .0033), one or more comorbidity (P = .0351), and ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .0001). Therapies associated with an increased risk of death in a univariate analysis included steroids (P = .0186), anticoagulation (P = .0562), and either chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (P = .0256).

In a multivariate analysis, age over 65 years (P = .018), ECOG performance status of 1 (P < .001), prior use of steroids (P = .052), and receipt of chemotherapy alone or in combination with immunotherapy (P = .025) were all associated with an increased risk of death.

“There is no impact of gender [sex], body mass index, smoking status, stage, or type of cancer on risk of death,” Dr. Horn said. “Therapy administered to treat COVID-19 is not significantly associated with outcome.”

“The impact of COVID-19 infection on cancer management and outcomes must be evaluated,” she added. “Data collection is ongoing, with additional analysis and studies planned to look at patient and provider perception of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on cancer care.”

Strengths and limitations

There are several limitations to findings from the TERAVOLT registry, according to invited discussant Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan.

He said the results are limited by the differences in triage decisions between European and other centers, the fact that most patients in TERAVOLT were hospitalized, the high proportion of patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer, and methods of data collection and analysis.

“There is no real-time data capture, no auditing, no standardized outcome definitions, and CRFs [case report forms] had a lot of limitations,” Dr. Curigliano said. “We have multiple biases, including selection bias, recall bias, confounding by indication, and changes in practice or disease evolution.”

Dr. Curigliano noted, however, that TERAVOLT is the largest real-world dataset of patients with COVID-19 and thoracic malignancies.

Furthermore, results from TERAVOLT correspond to results from the CCC-19 registry. Data from both registries suggest that older age, the presence of comorbidities, higher ECOG performances status, and chemotherapy alone or in combination with other therapies are associated with increased mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19.

The TERAVOLT registry is funded, in part, by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Dr. Horn disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Curigliano disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, and other pharmaceutical companies.
 

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Horn L et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA111.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Combining a personalized cancer vaccine with an immune checkpoint inhibitor induced neoantigen-specific immune responses in most patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase 1b study.

Only two clinical responses were seen in this early investigation of the vaccine, RO7198457, combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab. However, T-cell responses were observed in about three-quarters of the patients evaluated, according to study investigator Juanita Lopez, MB BChir, PhD.

Those immune responses, coupled with preliminary evidence of infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells into tumors, suggest the viability of this individualized anticancer strategy, according to Dr. Lopez, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research, London.

“Failure of T-cell priming is a major cause of lack of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Lopez said in an interview. “We hoped that, by eliciting a tumor-specific T-cell response, we would be able to overcome this.”

Preclinical data suggested the combination of vaccine and immune checkpoint inhibitors improved outcomes, which prompted the current study, added Dr. Lopez, who presented results from this study at the American Association for Cancer Research virtual meeting II.

Dr. Lopez noted that mutated neoantigens are recognized as foreign and have been shown to induce stronger T-cell responses, compared with shared antigens, likely because of a lack of central tolerance.

“Most of these mutated neoantigens are not shared between the patients, and therefore, targeted neoantigen-specific therapy requires an individualized approach,” she explained.

RO7198457 is manufactured on a per-patient basis and includes as many as 20 tumor-specific neoepitopes.
 

Study details

Dr. Lopez presented results from dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of the study, which included 142 patients with advanced solid tumors. The patients had colorectal, skin, kidney, lung, urothelial, breast, gynecologic, and head and neck cancers.

Most patients had low or no PD-L1 expression, and nearly 40% had received prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Patients received nine doses of RO7198457 at 25-50 mcg during the 12-week induction stage. They then received RO7198457 every eight cycles until disease progression. Patients received atezolizumab at 1,200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.

Induction of proinflammatory cytokines was observed at each dose tested, and ex vivo T-cell responses were noted in 46 of 63 patients evaluated, or 73%.

T-cell receptors specific to RO7198457 were present posttreatment in a patient with rectal cancer, providing some preliminary evidence suggesting infiltration of RO7198457-stimulated T cells in the tumor, Dr. Lopez said.

There were two clinical responses. A patient with rectal cancer had a complete response, and a patient with triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response.

The combination of RO7198457 with atezolizumab was generally well tolerated, and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached, Dr. Lopez said. Most adverse events were grade 1/2, and immune-mediated adverse events were rare.
 

Implications and next steps

This study furthers earlier observations from neoantigen vaccine studies by linking dosing of the vaccine to dosing with immune checkpoint inhibitor, rather than giving the vaccine in the period leading up to immune checkpoint inhibitor administration, according to former AACR President Elaine R. Mardis, PhD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine, both in Columbus.

That said, the implications for clinical practice remain unclear, according to Dr. Mardis.

“This combination did elicit an immune response that was highly specific for the neoantigen vaccine, but most patients did not receive a clinical benefit of disease response,” Dr. Mardis said in an interview. “This tells us the combination approach used was, overall, not quite right, and we need to continue to innovate in this area.”

The low clinical response rate in the study was likely caused in part by the fact that patients had very advanced disease and were heavily pretreated, according to Dr. Lopez

Randomized phase 2 studies of RO7198457 are now underway, Dr. Lopez said. One is a study of RO7198457 plus atezolizumab as adjuvant treatment for non–small cell lung cancer (NCT04267237). Another is testing RO7198457 in combination with pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for melanoma (NCT03815058).

The current study was funded by Genentech and BioNTech. Dr. Lopez reported disclosures related to Roche/Genentech, Basilea Pharmaceutica, and Genmab. Dr. Mardis reported disclosures related to Quiagen NV, PACT Pharma, Kiadis Pharma NV, and Interpreta.

SOURCE: Lopez J et al. AACR 2020, Abstract CT301.

Presented during the ASCO 2020 plenary session, the results of the phase 3 ADAURA trial will prove practice-changing, according to Dr. Mark Kris of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Over 600 patients whose resected tumors were found to have EGFR mutations were treated with osimertinib. The results more than doubled disease-free survival rates, from 44% to 90% at 2 years.

Among other adjuvant trials, the phase 2 VISION study looked at tepotinib, a once-daily, highly selective oral MET inhibitor. The study showed durable responses coupled with acceptable side effects. The drug has been given fast-track status by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Kris notes that the DESTINY study introduces trastuzumab deruxtecan, an antibody-drug conjugate, as a promising new class of drugs for lung cancer patients. Interim results presented at ASCO further support the HER2 mutation as another potential target for patients with lung cancer.

Finally, the phase 2 CITYSCAPE study provides preliminary evidence for a new checkpoint inhibitor. The monoclonal antibody tiragolumab was developed to block TIGIT. The study showed that the combination of tiragolumab and atezolizumab can improve both rates of response and time to disease recurrence — results Dr. Kris considers encouraging for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Mark G. Kris, MD

Mark G. Kris, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College; Attending Physician, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

Presented during the ASCO 2020 plenary session, the results of the phase 3 ADAURA trial will prove practice-changing, according to Dr. Mark Kris of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Over 600 patients whose resected tumors were found to have EGFR mutations were treated with osimertinib. The results more than doubled disease-free survival rates, from 44% to 90% at 2 years.

Among other adjuvant trials, the phase 2 VISION study looked at tepotinib, a once-daily, highly selective oral MET inhibitor. The study showed durable responses coupled with acceptable side effects. The drug has been given fast-track status by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Kris notes that the DESTINY study introduces trastuzumab deruxtecan, an antibody-drug conjugate, as a promising new class of drugs for lung cancer patients. Interim results presented at ASCO further support the HER2 mutation as another potential target for patients with lung cancer.

Finally, the phase 2 CITYSCAPE study provides preliminary evidence for a new checkpoint inhibitor. The monoclonal antibody tiragolumab was developed to block TIGIT. The study showed that the combination of tiragolumab and atezolizumab can improve both rates of response and time to disease recurrence — results Dr. Kris considers encouraging for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Mark G. Kris, MD

Mark G. Kris, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College; Attending Physician, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

Presented during the ASCO 2020 plenary session, the results of the phase 3 ADAURA trial will prove practice-changing, according to Dr. Mark Kris of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Over 600 patients whose resected tumors were found to have EGFR mutations were treated with osimertinib. The results more than doubled disease-free survival rates, from 44% to 90% at 2 years.

Among other adjuvant trials, the phase 2 VISION study looked at tepotinib, a once-daily, highly selective oral MET inhibitor. The study showed durable responses coupled with acceptable side effects. The drug has been given fast-track status by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Kris notes that the DESTINY study introduces trastuzumab deruxtecan, an antibody-drug conjugate, as a promising new class of drugs for lung cancer patients. Interim results presented at ASCO further support the HER2 mutation as another potential target for patients with lung cancer.

Finally, the phase 2 CITYSCAPE study provides preliminary evidence for a new checkpoint inhibitor. The monoclonal antibody tiragolumab was developed to block TIGIT. The study showed that the combination of tiragolumab and atezolizumab can improve both rates of response and time to disease recurrence — results Dr. Kris considers encouraging for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Mark G. Kris, MD

Mark G. Kris, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College; Attending Physician, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

Adding tiragolumab to first-line treatment with atezolizumab improves outcomes in patients with PD-L1–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to updated results from the phase 2 CITYSCAPE study.

Patients who received tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT antibody, in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, had superior overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with results of patients who received placebo with atezolizumab.

Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Johnson explained that TIGIT is an immunomodulatory receptor present on activated T cells and natural killer cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC.

“TIGIT inhibits T cells and natural killer cells by binding to its ligand PVR on tumor cells and antigen-presenting cells,” she said. “TIGIT expression strongly correlates with PD-1 expression, sometimes on the same tumor-infiltrating T cells in lung cancer. So the hypothesis of this trial was that anti-TIGIT antibodies, which prevent TIGIT from binding to its ligand, could restore the antitumor response and could complement the activity of anti–PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies.”

Dr. Johnson noted that combination anti–TIGIT/PD-L1 antibody treatment synergistically improved tumor control and prolonged survival over either antibody alone in preclinical models (Cancer Cell. 2014 Dec 8;26[6]:923-937). In addition, tiragolumab has been evaluated in a phase 1 study, both as monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab, in multiple solid tumors (NCT02794571).

The phase 2 CITYSCAPE study (NCT03563716) was initiated to confirm the efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Johnson said.

CITYSCAPE enrolled 135 patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients did not have EGFR or ALK alterations.

Half of patients (n = 68) were randomized to receive tiragolumab at 600 mg plus atezolizumab at 1,200 mg, both given on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. The other half of patients (n = 67) were randomized to receive atezolizumab at the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

ORR and PFS

The study’s primary analysis was conducted in June 2019 at a median follow-up of 5.9 months. At that time, the ORR and PFS data showed an early benefit with tiragolumab. The ORR was 31% in the tiragolumab arm and 16% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.42 months and 3.58 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57).

With an additional 6 months of follow-up, the tiragolumab benefit persisted, Dr. Johnson said. The updated ORR in the intent-to-treat population was 37% in the tiragolumab arm and 21% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.58).

The tiragolumab combination showed “clinically meaningful” improvements in ORR and PFS, Dr. Johnson said. She also noted “a greater magnitude of improvement” was seen in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater.

There were 29 patients in each treatment arm with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. Among these patients, the ORR was 66% in the tiragolumab arm and 24% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was not reached and 4.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.30).

There were no significant differences in ORR or PFS among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores below 50%, Dr. Johnson noted.

She added that duration of response and overall survival data are not yet mature and will be presented at a future conference.
 

Adverse events

As reported in the primary analysis, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab had a tolerable safety profile, Dr. Johnson said.

“Despite a near doubling of the median treatment duration [at the updated analysis], there were similar numbers of any-cause adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and serious adverse events,” she said.

Overall, adverse events occurred in 99% of patients in the tiragolumab arm and 96% of those in the placebo arm. Rates of grade 3-5 adverse events were 48% and 44%, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events were 37% and 35%, respectively.

A higher frequency of adverse events in the tiragolumab arm was related to an increase in immune-related events, including infusion reactions, pruritus, rash, arthralgia, and nephritis. This makes sense because the patients in that group were receiving two active immunotherapies, Dr. Johnson said.
 

Data inspire cautious optimism

The safety and activity of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab are “to be confirmed in an ongoing phase 3 study called SKYSCRAPER-01 [NCT04294810],” Dr. Johnson said.

Invited discussant Grace K. Dy, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., said the ORRs in CITYSCAPE have “generated a lot of buzz,” but she urged caution pending phase 3 results.

“While we are all excited by the data and want to see a winner, we should be careful, as speed can also crash and burn,” she said. “We have plenty of examples of promising studies that collapsed in later phase trials.”

There is room, however, for cautious optimism that the combination is a promising advance “as long as no prognostic or confounding variable is determined later on to be nonrandomly distributed between the groups to account for the difference seen,” Dr. Dy said.

She also noted that “the distribution of favorable or unfavorable mutations between the groups is unknown, and understanding this will be relevant.”

Preclinical data suggest the presence of DNM1 expression is crucial for maximizing the effect of TIGIT blockade, and tumor MHC class 1 expression appears to be reduced alongside reductions in DNM1 expression in the intratumoral natural kill cells in lung cancer specimens, Dr. Dy explained.

“Assessment of these biomarkers will be instructive,” she said. “More recent data also appear to implicate a paradoxical role of soluble CD155 or PVR ligand in actually inhibiting DNM1, so the effect of systemic TIGIT blockade may be mitigated if there is rebound increase of counterbalancing signals by increased secretion of soluble CD155, and we look forward to more data in the future regarding this.”

CITYSCAPE was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with Genentech and numerous other companies. Dr. Dy disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Tesaro.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rodriguez-Abreu D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9503.

Adding tiragolumab to first-line treatment with atezolizumab improves outcomes in patients with PD-L1–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to updated results from the phase 2 CITYSCAPE study.

Patients who received tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT antibody, in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, had superior overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with results of patients who received placebo with atezolizumab.

Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Johnson explained that TIGIT is an immunomodulatory receptor present on activated T cells and natural killer cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC.

“TIGIT inhibits T cells and natural killer cells by binding to its ligand PVR on tumor cells and antigen-presenting cells,” she said. “TIGIT expression strongly correlates with PD-1 expression, sometimes on the same tumor-infiltrating T cells in lung cancer. So the hypothesis of this trial was that anti-TIGIT antibodies, which prevent TIGIT from binding to its ligand, could restore the antitumor response and could complement the activity of anti–PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies.”

Dr. Johnson noted that combination anti–TIGIT/PD-L1 antibody treatment synergistically improved tumor control and prolonged survival over either antibody alone in preclinical models (Cancer Cell. 2014 Dec 8;26[6]:923-937). In addition, tiragolumab has been evaluated in a phase 1 study, both as monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab, in multiple solid tumors (NCT02794571).

The phase 2 CITYSCAPE study (NCT03563716) was initiated to confirm the efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Johnson said.

CITYSCAPE enrolled 135 patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients did not have EGFR or ALK alterations.

Half of patients (n = 68) were randomized to receive tiragolumab at 600 mg plus atezolizumab at 1,200 mg, both given on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. The other half of patients (n = 67) were randomized to receive atezolizumab at the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

ORR and PFS

The study’s primary analysis was conducted in June 2019 at a median follow-up of 5.9 months. At that time, the ORR and PFS data showed an early benefit with tiragolumab. The ORR was 31% in the tiragolumab arm and 16% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.42 months and 3.58 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57).

With an additional 6 months of follow-up, the tiragolumab benefit persisted, Dr. Johnson said. The updated ORR in the intent-to-treat population was 37% in the tiragolumab arm and 21% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.58).

The tiragolumab combination showed “clinically meaningful” improvements in ORR and PFS, Dr. Johnson said. She also noted “a greater magnitude of improvement” was seen in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater.

There were 29 patients in each treatment arm with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. Among these patients, the ORR was 66% in the tiragolumab arm and 24% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was not reached and 4.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.30).

There were no significant differences in ORR or PFS among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores below 50%, Dr. Johnson noted.

She added that duration of response and overall survival data are not yet mature and will be presented at a future conference.
 

Adverse events

As reported in the primary analysis, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab had a tolerable safety profile, Dr. Johnson said.

“Despite a near doubling of the median treatment duration [at the updated analysis], there were similar numbers of any-cause adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and serious adverse events,” she said.

Overall, adverse events occurred in 99% of patients in the tiragolumab arm and 96% of those in the placebo arm. Rates of grade 3-5 adverse events were 48% and 44%, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events were 37% and 35%, respectively.

A higher frequency of adverse events in the tiragolumab arm was related to an increase in immune-related events, including infusion reactions, pruritus, rash, arthralgia, and nephritis. This makes sense because the patients in that group were receiving two active immunotherapies, Dr. Johnson said.
 

Data inspire cautious optimism

The safety and activity of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab are “to be confirmed in an ongoing phase 3 study called SKYSCRAPER-01 [NCT04294810],” Dr. Johnson said.

Invited discussant Grace K. Dy, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., said the ORRs in CITYSCAPE have “generated a lot of buzz,” but she urged caution pending phase 3 results.

“While we are all excited by the data and want to see a winner, we should be careful, as speed can also crash and burn,” she said. “We have plenty of examples of promising studies that collapsed in later phase trials.”

There is room, however, for cautious optimism that the combination is a promising advance “as long as no prognostic or confounding variable is determined later on to be nonrandomly distributed between the groups to account for the difference seen,” Dr. Dy said.

She also noted that “the distribution of favorable or unfavorable mutations between the groups is unknown, and understanding this will be relevant.”

Preclinical data suggest the presence of DNM1 expression is crucial for maximizing the effect of TIGIT blockade, and tumor MHC class 1 expression appears to be reduced alongside reductions in DNM1 expression in the intratumoral natural kill cells in lung cancer specimens, Dr. Dy explained.

“Assessment of these biomarkers will be instructive,” she said. “More recent data also appear to implicate a paradoxical role of soluble CD155 or PVR ligand in actually inhibiting DNM1, so the effect of systemic TIGIT blockade may be mitigated if there is rebound increase of counterbalancing signals by increased secretion of soluble CD155, and we look forward to more data in the future regarding this.”

CITYSCAPE was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with Genentech and numerous other companies. Dr. Dy disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Tesaro.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rodriguez-Abreu D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9503.

Adding tiragolumab to first-line treatment with atezolizumab improves outcomes in patients with PD-L1–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to updated results from the phase 2 CITYSCAPE study.

Patients who received tiragolumab, an anti-TIGIT antibody, in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, had superior overall response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with results of patients who received placebo with atezolizumab.

Melissa L. Johnson, MD, of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tenn., presented these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Dr. Johnson explained that TIGIT is an immunomodulatory receptor present on activated T cells and natural killer cells in multiple cancers, including NSCLC.

“TIGIT inhibits T cells and natural killer cells by binding to its ligand PVR on tumor cells and antigen-presenting cells,” she said. “TIGIT expression strongly correlates with PD-1 expression, sometimes on the same tumor-infiltrating T cells in lung cancer. So the hypothesis of this trial was that anti-TIGIT antibodies, which prevent TIGIT from binding to its ligand, could restore the antitumor response and could complement the activity of anti–PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies.”

Dr. Johnson noted that combination anti–TIGIT/PD-L1 antibody treatment synergistically improved tumor control and prolonged survival over either antibody alone in preclinical models (Cancer Cell. 2014 Dec 8;26[6]:923-937). In addition, tiragolumab has been evaluated in a phase 1 study, both as monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab, in multiple solid tumors (NCT02794571).

The phase 2 CITYSCAPE study (NCT03563716) was initiated to confirm the efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab for the first-line treatment of NSCLC, Dr. Johnson said.

CITYSCAPE enrolled 135 patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1–positive, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients did not have EGFR or ALK alterations.

Half of patients (n = 68) were randomized to receive tiragolumab at 600 mg plus atezolizumab at 1,200 mg, both given on day 1 of every 3-week cycle. The other half of patients (n = 67) were randomized to receive atezolizumab at the same dose and schedule plus placebo.
 

ORR and PFS

The study’s primary analysis was conducted in June 2019 at a median follow-up of 5.9 months. At that time, the ORR and PFS data showed an early benefit with tiragolumab. The ORR was 31% in the tiragolumab arm and 16% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.42 months and 3.58 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57).

With an additional 6 months of follow-up, the tiragolumab benefit persisted, Dr. Johnson said. The updated ORR in the intent-to-treat population was 37% in the tiragolumab arm and 21% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.58).

The tiragolumab combination showed “clinically meaningful” improvements in ORR and PFS, Dr. Johnson said. She also noted “a greater magnitude of improvement” was seen in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater.

There were 29 patients in each treatment arm with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. Among these patients, the ORR was 66% in the tiragolumab arm and 24% in the placebo arm. The median PFS was not reached and 4.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.30).

There were no significant differences in ORR or PFS among patients with PD-L1 tumor proportion scores below 50%, Dr. Johnson noted.

She added that duration of response and overall survival data are not yet mature and will be presented at a future conference.
 

Adverse events

As reported in the primary analysis, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab had a tolerable safety profile, Dr. Johnson said.

“Despite a near doubling of the median treatment duration [at the updated analysis], there were similar numbers of any-cause adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and serious adverse events,” she said.

Overall, adverse events occurred in 99% of patients in the tiragolumab arm and 96% of those in the placebo arm. Rates of grade 3-5 adverse events were 48% and 44%, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events were 37% and 35%, respectively.

A higher frequency of adverse events in the tiragolumab arm was related to an increase in immune-related events, including infusion reactions, pruritus, rash, arthralgia, and nephritis. This makes sense because the patients in that group were receiving two active immunotherapies, Dr. Johnson said.
 

Data inspire cautious optimism

The safety and activity of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab are “to be confirmed in an ongoing phase 3 study called SKYSCRAPER-01 [NCT04294810],” Dr. Johnson said.

Invited discussant Grace K. Dy, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., said the ORRs in CITYSCAPE have “generated a lot of buzz,” but she urged caution pending phase 3 results.

“While we are all excited by the data and want to see a winner, we should be careful, as speed can also crash and burn,” she said. “We have plenty of examples of promising studies that collapsed in later phase trials.”

There is room, however, for cautious optimism that the combination is a promising advance “as long as no prognostic or confounding variable is determined later on to be nonrandomly distributed between the groups to account for the difference seen,” Dr. Dy said.

She also noted that “the distribution of favorable or unfavorable mutations between the groups is unknown, and understanding this will be relevant.”

Preclinical data suggest the presence of DNM1 expression is crucial for maximizing the effect of TIGIT blockade, and tumor MHC class 1 expression appears to be reduced alongside reductions in DNM1 expression in the intratumoral natural kill cells in lung cancer specimens, Dr. Dy explained.

“Assessment of these biomarkers will be instructive,” she said. “More recent data also appear to implicate a paradoxical role of soluble CD155 or PVR ligand in actually inhibiting DNM1, so the effect of systemic TIGIT blockade may be mitigated if there is rebound increase of counterbalancing signals by increased secretion of soluble CD155, and we look forward to more data in the future regarding this.”

CITYSCAPE was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with Genentech and numerous other companies. Dr. Dy disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, and Tesaro.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rodriguez-Abreu D et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9503.

Despite mounting evidence that low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality in people at high risk, the uptake of screening in the United States has been slow, and some researchers caution that the risks involved need to be better understood.

It has been almost 10 years since the landmark National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) provided the scientific evidence used by the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend annual screening for adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit in the previous 15 years.

But just 4.2% of Americans who qualified for screening in 2018 were tested, according to an American Lung Association report. If everyone at high risk had been tested, 48,000 American lives could have been saved.

Final results from the NELSON trial, published earlier this year, support those from NLST.

Mortality was 24% lower with low-dose CT screening than with no screening in the NELSON cohort, which consisted of 13,195 men and 2594 women at high risk for lung cancer because they were current or former smokers.

“With the NELSON results, the efficacy of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer is confirmed,” wrote the authors of an editorial accompanying the NELSON results. “Our job is no longer to assess whether low-dose CT screening for lung cancer works: it does. Our job is to identify the target population in which it will be acceptable and cost-effective.”

That sentiment is echoed by Michael Gould, MD, from Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

“Lo and behold, we have confirmation of NLST results from NELSON,” Dr. Gould said in an interview. “Now that we have consistent data from the NELSON confirmatory trial, can we finally believe NLST?”

Even though NELSON confirms the benefits of screening in clinical trials, many questions remain about how lung cancer screening translates into everyday practice, said Dr. Gould, who had been scheduled to discuss the trials and the state of lung screening at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference, which will now run virtually in August.

For starters, the target population needs more scrutiny. Research has shown that, outside of clinical trials, the harms of screening can sometimes outweigh the benefits.

In 2018, the rate of overdiagnosis was shown to be 67.2% in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST).

And 56% of people screened with low-dose CT had false-positive results that required follow-up testing and procedures, according to a 2017 study of current and former heavy smokers. That rate is more than double the 18.5% false-positive rate in NLST.

“Only 20% of NLST participants were over age 65,” Dr. Gould said. “The NELSON cohort was younger.”

And although the USPSTF recommends lung screening in high-risk people, “there were some in the NLST cohort whose risk was not particularly high.” Others in the trial, he said, had a high risk, but some of those had one or more comorbid conditions, “so the risk was unbalanced.

“Risk is more complicated than simply saying that anyone who meets the NLST criteria should get scanned,” he added.

Weighing risks and benefits needs to be done on a patient-by-patient basis, Dr. Gould said. “Do they have the ability to tolerate surgery? What’s important to them? We can’t just say, ‘you have a 30-pack-year history, go get a test’.”

Often, he said, it’s the people who have the most to gain from screening who are also at highest risk from biopsies and surgical and nonsurgical treatments because of comorbidities.

The NLST population might also have cast a wider net for those eligible for screening; NELSON had a lower threshold for amount smoked (30 vs. 15 pack-years). “NLST points to scanning a bigger population and lighter smokers,” Dr. Gould said.
 

Psychological risks of screening

Neither the NLST nor NELSON reported relevant psychological aspects of harm from CT screening for lung cancer, two researchers reported in a letter responding to the NELSON findings.

The trial-participation request letters, which were sent to 606,409 people in the general population, “in order to identify 15,792 persons (2.6%) who were eligible to participate, may have caused fear,” wrote Jes Lindholt, MD, DMSc, and Rikke Søgaard, PhD, from Odense University Hospital in Denmark.

“That raises the question: Do people want to be screened? I can’t understand why the US and Britain consider it so definitive to start a screening program,” Dr. Lindholt said in an interview.

In addition to a psychological cost, he questioned the financial cost-benefit ratio of a screening program. “What strikes me is that they haven’t done any cost analysis on any of these randomized trials.”

“Of the 203 men who got the diagnosis of lung cancer, 160 (78.8%) died from lung cancer. Whether screening actually improved or prolonged their remaining lifetime should be considered,” Dr. Lindholt and Dr. Søgaard wrote.
 

Challenges of implementation

Despite the extensive trials, there are still questions about how to implement screening in the real world. “Did NLST select patients who were, on average, healthier and less likely to have complications?” Dr. Gould asked.

Everyday practice might not find the same favorable outcomes as NLST. “Can the results of the NTLST be replicated in real-world settings? Not yet,” he said. Hospitals and health systems are struggling to implement screening.

Follow-up and tracking are not where they should be. General practitioners don’t have the same resources as the NLST researchers had, he explained. They were able to remind patients to come back for another test and call them with the results, all under the umbrella of implementation, “and they’re still not on target.”

Getting people scanned is key, said Michael Barry, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who is a current member of the USPSTF and is working on new lung cancer screening recommendations to be published this summer.

“We have an implementation problem,” he said. “The heavier smokers are being way underscreened.”

People need to have more information to review the pros and cons of screening, Dr. Barry said. “We’ve got large trials that show that benefits outweigh the harms, but we could benefit from implementation research. This is an issue for many screening tasks.”

Eight million Americans meet the eligibility requirements for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT, according to a 2019 report from the American College of Radiology.

Screening tests are covered by Medicare, but getting people to the clinic has not been easy. In 2018, Saved by the Scan, a big-budget national advertising campaign launched by the ALA, featured ex-smokers who survived lung cancer because of early detection with a low-dose CT scan, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

And many people being scanned are not part of the USPSTF target group. In 2017, lung cancer screening was reported “by 12.5% of smokers who met USPSTF criteria and 7.9% of smokers aged 55-80 years who did not meet USPSTF criteria,” according to a recent analysis of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC report concludes that some people are being screened without needing screening, and that “avoidance of screening inconsistent with USPSTF criteria could reduce the potential for harms such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment.”

Dr. Gould said he agrees that this factor needs to be looked at. “There is underutilization in those who need screening, and maybe overscreening in those who aren’t at risk.”

There are also epidemiologic data that show that black Americans are at higher risk at a younger age for the same level of smoking. “So should there be a lower threshold for smoking and lower age, particularly in the African American population?” Dr. Gould asked.

The NELSON trial had significant results in a population younger than that in NLST, he pointed out. “That needs to be considered.”
 

Smokers dismiss medical advice

People in the high-risk group need to better understand the benefits of screening, said Christine D. Berg, MD, an NLST researcher from the National Cancer Institute.

“We know the uptake of lung cancer screening has been slow,” she said.

She described encouraging her neighbor, a heavy smoker, to get screened. “But she said she didn’t want to know if she had lung cancer, so she didn’t go.”

“Now she’s dead,” Dr. Berg continued. Unfortunately, “what we see is that those who continue to smoke, and smoke heavily, are not likely to heed medical advice.”

The fear of finding out you have lung cancer needs to be overcome, she said. Smokers need to understand that they can add a decade to their lives if lung cancer is detected early.

Some places in the United States have better screening rates than others. “We see a lot of variation from state to state,” she said. For instance, in Massachusetts, 12.3% of high-risk people have been screened; in Nevada, the rate is just 0.5%.

There are many reasons for that. First, there are logistics. Screening covered by Medicare must be done in a certified center “with good equipment and that can track results,” Dr. Berg said. That might be one hurdle. But the greater hurdle is the patients themselves.

There are studies that point to risks associated with invasive procedures, such as biopsy after screening, which can lead to complications, even when no cancer is found. “My answer to that is, if you need a biopsy, check the data. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons has a database of all the complications, and it’s publicly accessible. You can find hospitals in your region that report data,” she explained, and “that have highest volume and lowest complication rates.”

Second, imaging has improved since the NLST trial. “We have a better ability to estimate cancer in the nodules we find,” Dr. Berg explained. Nodules that previously needed a biopsy to confirm malignancy can now be assessed with AI and machine learning.

“I think the probability of false positives and problems from biopsy have changed dramatically over the last 10 years,” she said.

And we are catching more lung cancer earlier and saving lives. Overall, early detection is increasing, and late-stage detection is decreasing. “We’re bending the curve, making progress,” she said.

In 2019, the 5-year survival rate for lung cancer was 21.7%, up from 17.2% a decade earlier, according to the ALA. Much of that is because of early diagnosis, when the disease is still curable, which could be related to increased screening.

“NELSON showed benefit to CT screening and is useful in helping convince some of the skeptics,” Dr. Berg said.

Diagnosis is also improving with new technologies. Electronic health records can be scanned to identify patients at increased risk, and patient portals can send reminders, notifications, and other educational information to encourage patients to discuss options with their doctor, which could improve the national lung cancer prognosis, Dr. Gould said.

At the end of the day, it still comes down to the patient and doctor having a conversation about the risks and benefits.

“But we have to get to that point,” Dr. Gould said. “We need to continue to develop tools to facilitate that conversation. It’s complicated, and there’s a lot of information to weigh.”

“We’re still working out how to do that,” he added.

Dr. Barry, Dr. Gould, and Dr. Berg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite mounting evidence that low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality in people at high risk, the uptake of screening in the United States has been slow, and some researchers caution that the risks involved need to be better understood.

It has been almost 10 years since the landmark National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) provided the scientific evidence used by the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend annual screening for adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit in the previous 15 years.

But just 4.2% of Americans who qualified for screening in 2018 were tested, according to an American Lung Association report. If everyone at high risk had been tested, 48,000 American lives could have been saved.

Final results from the NELSON trial, published earlier this year, support those from NLST.

Mortality was 24% lower with low-dose CT screening than with no screening in the NELSON cohort, which consisted of 13,195 men and 2594 women at high risk for lung cancer because they were current or former smokers.

“With the NELSON results, the efficacy of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer is confirmed,” wrote the authors of an editorial accompanying the NELSON results. “Our job is no longer to assess whether low-dose CT screening for lung cancer works: it does. Our job is to identify the target population in which it will be acceptable and cost-effective.”

That sentiment is echoed by Michael Gould, MD, from Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

“Lo and behold, we have confirmation of NLST results from NELSON,” Dr. Gould said in an interview. “Now that we have consistent data from the NELSON confirmatory trial, can we finally believe NLST?”

Even though NELSON confirms the benefits of screening in clinical trials, many questions remain about how lung cancer screening translates into everyday practice, said Dr. Gould, who had been scheduled to discuss the trials and the state of lung screening at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference, which will now run virtually in August.

For starters, the target population needs more scrutiny. Research has shown that, outside of clinical trials, the harms of screening can sometimes outweigh the benefits.

In 2018, the rate of overdiagnosis was shown to be 67.2% in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST).

And 56% of people screened with low-dose CT had false-positive results that required follow-up testing and procedures, according to a 2017 study of current and former heavy smokers. That rate is more than double the 18.5% false-positive rate in NLST.

“Only 20% of NLST participants were over age 65,” Dr. Gould said. “The NELSON cohort was younger.”

And although the USPSTF recommends lung screening in high-risk people, “there were some in the NLST cohort whose risk was not particularly high.” Others in the trial, he said, had a high risk, but some of those had one or more comorbid conditions, “so the risk was unbalanced.

“Risk is more complicated than simply saying that anyone who meets the NLST criteria should get scanned,” he added.

Weighing risks and benefits needs to be done on a patient-by-patient basis, Dr. Gould said. “Do they have the ability to tolerate surgery? What’s important to them? We can’t just say, ‘you have a 30-pack-year history, go get a test’.”

Often, he said, it’s the people who have the most to gain from screening who are also at highest risk from biopsies and surgical and nonsurgical treatments because of comorbidities.

The NLST population might also have cast a wider net for those eligible for screening; NELSON had a lower threshold for amount smoked (30 vs. 15 pack-years). “NLST points to scanning a bigger population and lighter smokers,” Dr. Gould said.
 

Psychological risks of screening

Neither the NLST nor NELSON reported relevant psychological aspects of harm from CT screening for lung cancer, two researchers reported in a letter responding to the NELSON findings.

The trial-participation request letters, which were sent to 606,409 people in the general population, “in order to identify 15,792 persons (2.6%) who were eligible to participate, may have caused fear,” wrote Jes Lindholt, MD, DMSc, and Rikke Søgaard, PhD, from Odense University Hospital in Denmark.

“That raises the question: Do people want to be screened? I can’t understand why the US and Britain consider it so definitive to start a screening program,” Dr. Lindholt said in an interview.

In addition to a psychological cost, he questioned the financial cost-benefit ratio of a screening program. “What strikes me is that they haven’t done any cost analysis on any of these randomized trials.”

“Of the 203 men who got the diagnosis of lung cancer, 160 (78.8%) died from lung cancer. Whether screening actually improved or prolonged their remaining lifetime should be considered,” Dr. Lindholt and Dr. Søgaard wrote.
 

Challenges of implementation

Despite the extensive trials, there are still questions about how to implement screening in the real world. “Did NLST select patients who were, on average, healthier and less likely to have complications?” Dr. Gould asked.

Everyday practice might not find the same favorable outcomes as NLST. “Can the results of the NTLST be replicated in real-world settings? Not yet,” he said. Hospitals and health systems are struggling to implement screening.

Follow-up and tracking are not where they should be. General practitioners don’t have the same resources as the NLST researchers had, he explained. They were able to remind patients to come back for another test and call them with the results, all under the umbrella of implementation, “and they’re still not on target.”

Getting people scanned is key, said Michael Barry, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who is a current member of the USPSTF and is working on new lung cancer screening recommendations to be published this summer.

“We have an implementation problem,” he said. “The heavier smokers are being way underscreened.”

People need to have more information to review the pros and cons of screening, Dr. Barry said. “We’ve got large trials that show that benefits outweigh the harms, but we could benefit from implementation research. This is an issue for many screening tasks.”

Eight million Americans meet the eligibility requirements for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT, according to a 2019 report from the American College of Radiology.

Screening tests are covered by Medicare, but getting people to the clinic has not been easy. In 2018, Saved by the Scan, a big-budget national advertising campaign launched by the ALA, featured ex-smokers who survived lung cancer because of early detection with a low-dose CT scan, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

And many people being scanned are not part of the USPSTF target group. In 2017, lung cancer screening was reported “by 12.5% of smokers who met USPSTF criteria and 7.9% of smokers aged 55-80 years who did not meet USPSTF criteria,” according to a recent analysis of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC report concludes that some people are being screened without needing screening, and that “avoidance of screening inconsistent with USPSTF criteria could reduce the potential for harms such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment.”

Dr. Gould said he agrees that this factor needs to be looked at. “There is underutilization in those who need screening, and maybe overscreening in those who aren’t at risk.”

There are also epidemiologic data that show that black Americans are at higher risk at a younger age for the same level of smoking. “So should there be a lower threshold for smoking and lower age, particularly in the African American population?” Dr. Gould asked.

The NELSON trial had significant results in a population younger than that in NLST, he pointed out. “That needs to be considered.”
 

Smokers dismiss medical advice

People in the high-risk group need to better understand the benefits of screening, said Christine D. Berg, MD, an NLST researcher from the National Cancer Institute.

“We know the uptake of lung cancer screening has been slow,” she said.

She described encouraging her neighbor, a heavy smoker, to get screened. “But she said she didn’t want to know if she had lung cancer, so she didn’t go.”

“Now she’s dead,” Dr. Berg continued. Unfortunately, “what we see is that those who continue to smoke, and smoke heavily, are not likely to heed medical advice.”

The fear of finding out you have lung cancer needs to be overcome, she said. Smokers need to understand that they can add a decade to their lives if lung cancer is detected early.

Some places in the United States have better screening rates than others. “We see a lot of variation from state to state,” she said. For instance, in Massachusetts, 12.3% of high-risk people have been screened; in Nevada, the rate is just 0.5%.

There are many reasons for that. First, there are logistics. Screening covered by Medicare must be done in a certified center “with good equipment and that can track results,” Dr. Berg said. That might be one hurdle. But the greater hurdle is the patients themselves.

There are studies that point to risks associated with invasive procedures, such as biopsy after screening, which can lead to complications, even when no cancer is found. “My answer to that is, if you need a biopsy, check the data. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons has a database of all the complications, and it’s publicly accessible. You can find hospitals in your region that report data,” she explained, and “that have highest volume and lowest complication rates.”

Second, imaging has improved since the NLST trial. “We have a better ability to estimate cancer in the nodules we find,” Dr. Berg explained. Nodules that previously needed a biopsy to confirm malignancy can now be assessed with AI and machine learning.

“I think the probability of false positives and problems from biopsy have changed dramatically over the last 10 years,” she said.

And we are catching more lung cancer earlier and saving lives. Overall, early detection is increasing, and late-stage detection is decreasing. “We’re bending the curve, making progress,” she said.

In 2019, the 5-year survival rate for lung cancer was 21.7%, up from 17.2% a decade earlier, according to the ALA. Much of that is because of early diagnosis, when the disease is still curable, which could be related to increased screening.

“NELSON showed benefit to CT screening and is useful in helping convince some of the skeptics,” Dr. Berg said.

Diagnosis is also improving with new technologies. Electronic health records can be scanned to identify patients at increased risk, and patient portals can send reminders, notifications, and other educational information to encourage patients to discuss options with their doctor, which could improve the national lung cancer prognosis, Dr. Gould said.

At the end of the day, it still comes down to the patient and doctor having a conversation about the risks and benefits.

“But we have to get to that point,” Dr. Gould said. “We need to continue to develop tools to facilitate that conversation. It’s complicated, and there’s a lot of information to weigh.”

“We’re still working out how to do that,” he added.

Dr. Barry, Dr. Gould, and Dr. Berg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite mounting evidence that low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer mortality in people at high risk, the uptake of screening in the United States has been slow, and some researchers caution that the risks involved need to be better understood.

It has been almost 10 years since the landmark National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) provided the scientific evidence used by the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend annual screening for adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit in the previous 15 years.

But just 4.2% of Americans who qualified for screening in 2018 were tested, according to an American Lung Association report. If everyone at high risk had been tested, 48,000 American lives could have been saved.

Final results from the NELSON trial, published earlier this year, support those from NLST.

Mortality was 24% lower with low-dose CT screening than with no screening in the NELSON cohort, which consisted of 13,195 men and 2594 women at high risk for lung cancer because they were current or former smokers.

“With the NELSON results, the efficacy of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer is confirmed,” wrote the authors of an editorial accompanying the NELSON results. “Our job is no longer to assess whether low-dose CT screening for lung cancer works: it does. Our job is to identify the target population in which it will be acceptable and cost-effective.”

That sentiment is echoed by Michael Gould, MD, from Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

“Lo and behold, we have confirmation of NLST results from NELSON,” Dr. Gould said in an interview. “Now that we have consistent data from the NELSON confirmatory trial, can we finally believe NLST?”

Even though NELSON confirms the benefits of screening in clinical trials, many questions remain about how lung cancer screening translates into everyday practice, said Dr. Gould, who had been scheduled to discuss the trials and the state of lung screening at the American Thoracic Society 2020 International Conference, which will now run virtually in August.

For starters, the target population needs more scrutiny. Research has shown that, outside of clinical trials, the harms of screening can sometimes outweigh the benefits.

In 2018, the rate of overdiagnosis was shown to be 67.2% in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST).

And 56% of people screened with low-dose CT had false-positive results that required follow-up testing and procedures, according to a 2017 study of current and former heavy smokers. That rate is more than double the 18.5% false-positive rate in NLST.

“Only 20% of NLST participants were over age 65,” Dr. Gould said. “The NELSON cohort was younger.”

And although the USPSTF recommends lung screening in high-risk people, “there were some in the NLST cohort whose risk was not particularly high.” Others in the trial, he said, had a high risk, but some of those had one or more comorbid conditions, “so the risk was unbalanced.

“Risk is more complicated than simply saying that anyone who meets the NLST criteria should get scanned,” he added.

Weighing risks and benefits needs to be done on a patient-by-patient basis, Dr. Gould said. “Do they have the ability to tolerate surgery? What’s important to them? We can’t just say, ‘you have a 30-pack-year history, go get a test’.”

Often, he said, it’s the people who have the most to gain from screening who are also at highest risk from biopsies and surgical and nonsurgical treatments because of comorbidities.

The NLST population might also have cast a wider net for those eligible for screening; NELSON had a lower threshold for amount smoked (30 vs. 15 pack-years). “NLST points to scanning a bigger population and lighter smokers,” Dr. Gould said.
 

Psychological risks of screening

Neither the NLST nor NELSON reported relevant psychological aspects of harm from CT screening for lung cancer, two researchers reported in a letter responding to the NELSON findings.

The trial-participation request letters, which were sent to 606,409 people in the general population, “in order to identify 15,792 persons (2.6%) who were eligible to participate, may have caused fear,” wrote Jes Lindholt, MD, DMSc, and Rikke Søgaard, PhD, from Odense University Hospital in Denmark.

“That raises the question: Do people want to be screened? I can’t understand why the US and Britain consider it so definitive to start a screening program,” Dr. Lindholt said in an interview.

In addition to a psychological cost, he questioned the financial cost-benefit ratio of a screening program. “What strikes me is that they haven’t done any cost analysis on any of these randomized trials.”

“Of the 203 men who got the diagnosis of lung cancer, 160 (78.8%) died from lung cancer. Whether screening actually improved or prolonged their remaining lifetime should be considered,” Dr. Lindholt and Dr. Søgaard wrote.
 

Challenges of implementation

Despite the extensive trials, there are still questions about how to implement screening in the real world. “Did NLST select patients who were, on average, healthier and less likely to have complications?” Dr. Gould asked.

Everyday practice might not find the same favorable outcomes as NLST. “Can the results of the NTLST be replicated in real-world settings? Not yet,” he said. Hospitals and health systems are struggling to implement screening.

Follow-up and tracking are not where they should be. General practitioners don’t have the same resources as the NLST researchers had, he explained. They were able to remind patients to come back for another test and call them with the results, all under the umbrella of implementation, “and they’re still not on target.”

Getting people scanned is key, said Michael Barry, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who is a current member of the USPSTF and is working on new lung cancer screening recommendations to be published this summer.

“We have an implementation problem,” he said. “The heavier smokers are being way underscreened.”

People need to have more information to review the pros and cons of screening, Dr. Barry said. “We’ve got large trials that show that benefits outweigh the harms, but we could benefit from implementation research. This is an issue for many screening tasks.”

Eight million Americans meet the eligibility requirements for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT, according to a 2019 report from the American College of Radiology.

Screening tests are covered by Medicare, but getting people to the clinic has not been easy. In 2018, Saved by the Scan, a big-budget national advertising campaign launched by the ALA, featured ex-smokers who survived lung cancer because of early detection with a low-dose CT scan, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

And many people being scanned are not part of the USPSTF target group. In 2017, lung cancer screening was reported “by 12.5% of smokers who met USPSTF criteria and 7.9% of smokers aged 55-80 years who did not meet USPSTF criteria,” according to a recent analysis of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC report concludes that some people are being screened without needing screening, and that “avoidance of screening inconsistent with USPSTF criteria could reduce the potential for harms such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment.”

Dr. Gould said he agrees that this factor needs to be looked at. “There is underutilization in those who need screening, and maybe overscreening in those who aren’t at risk.”

There are also epidemiologic data that show that black Americans are at higher risk at a younger age for the same level of smoking. “So should there be a lower threshold for smoking and lower age, particularly in the African American population?” Dr. Gould asked.

The NELSON trial had significant results in a population younger than that in NLST, he pointed out. “That needs to be considered.”
 

Smokers dismiss medical advice

People in the high-risk group need to better understand the benefits of screening, said Christine D. Berg, MD, an NLST researcher from the National Cancer Institute.

“We know the uptake of lung cancer screening has been slow,” she said.

She described encouraging her neighbor, a heavy smoker, to get screened. “But she said she didn’t want to know if she had lung cancer, so she didn’t go.”

“Now she’s dead,” Dr. Berg continued. Unfortunately, “what we see is that those who continue to smoke, and smoke heavily, are not likely to heed medical advice.”

The fear of finding out you have lung cancer needs to be overcome, she said. Smokers need to understand that they can add a decade to their lives if lung cancer is detected early.

Some places in the United States have better screening rates than others. “We see a lot of variation from state to state,” she said. For instance, in Massachusetts, 12.3% of high-risk people have been screened; in Nevada, the rate is just 0.5%.

There are many reasons for that. First, there are logistics. Screening covered by Medicare must be done in a certified center “with good equipment and that can track results,” Dr. Berg said. That might be one hurdle. But the greater hurdle is the patients themselves.

There are studies that point to risks associated with invasive procedures, such as biopsy after screening, which can lead to complications, even when no cancer is found. “My answer to that is, if you need a biopsy, check the data. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons has a database of all the complications, and it’s publicly accessible. You can find hospitals in your region that report data,” she explained, and “that have highest volume and lowest complication rates.”

Second, imaging has improved since the NLST trial. “We have a better ability to estimate cancer in the nodules we find,” Dr. Berg explained. Nodules that previously needed a biopsy to confirm malignancy can now be assessed with AI and machine learning.

“I think the probability of false positives and problems from biopsy have changed dramatically over the last 10 years,” she said.

And we are catching more lung cancer earlier and saving lives. Overall, early detection is increasing, and late-stage detection is decreasing. “We’re bending the curve, making progress,” she said.

In 2019, the 5-year survival rate for lung cancer was 21.7%, up from 17.2% a decade earlier, according to the ALA. Much of that is because of early diagnosis, when the disease is still curable, which could be related to increased screening.

“NELSON showed benefit to CT screening and is useful in helping convince some of the skeptics,” Dr. Berg said.

Diagnosis is also improving with new technologies. Electronic health records can be scanned to identify patients at increased risk, and patient portals can send reminders, notifications, and other educational information to encourage patients to discuss options with their doctor, which could improve the national lung cancer prognosis, Dr. Gould said.

At the end of the day, it still comes down to the patient and doctor having a conversation about the risks and benefits.

“But we have to get to that point,” Dr. Gould said. “We need to continue to develop tools to facilitate that conversation. It’s complicated, and there’s a lot of information to weigh.”

“We’re still working out how to do that,” he added.

Dr. Barry, Dr. Gould, and Dr. Berg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and two cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy appears to be an important new option for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.

Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).

A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).

In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
 

Details of CheckMate 9LA

CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.

The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.

If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.

The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
 

Results prompt FDA approval

Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).

With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).

Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.

One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.

Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.


 

Challenges to overcome

In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).

Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
 

Better by design

In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.

Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.

Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.

Longer follow-up needed

In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.

As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.

It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
 

Do the best you can

Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.

In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.

Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.


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

SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.

The combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and two cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy appears to be an important new option for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.

Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).

A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).

In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
 

Details of CheckMate 9LA

CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.

The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.

If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.

The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
 

Results prompt FDA approval

Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).

With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).

Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.

One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.

Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.


 

Challenges to overcome

In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).

Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
 

Better by design

In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.

Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.

Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.

Longer follow-up needed

In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.

As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.

It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
 

Do the best you can

Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.

In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.

Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.


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

SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.

The combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and two cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy appears to be an important new option for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Data from the CheckMate 9LA study suggest the combination amplifies the rapid response expected from chemotherapy and the long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Furthermore, the very limited exposure to chemotherapy appears to mitigate long-term risks.

Martin Reck, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf in Germany, reported the data as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program (Abstract 9501).

A prior trial, CheckMate 227, demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) and durability of response in comparison with conventional chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2020-31).

In CheckMate 9LA, researchers tested whether adding a limited course of chemotherapy – just two cycles – could improve outcomes further. Dr. Reck reported that, at the first preplanned interim analysis, the combination met its primary goal of improving OS as well as meeting multiple secondary endpoints.
 

Details of CheckMate 9LA

CheckMate 9LA included 719 treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and no known sensitizing alterations in EGFR or ALK. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients received either nivolumab plus ipilimumab at standard NSCLC doses plus two cycles of chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone for four cycles.

The chemotherapy regimen was tailored by histology. Pemetrexed plus either cisplatin or carboplatin, with optional pemetrexed maintenance, was administered to patients with non-squamous histology. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin was chosen for patients with squamous disease.

If there was no disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab could continue immunotherapy for up to 2 years.

Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression (< 1% vs. ≥ 1%), gender, and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous). Tumor and clinical characteristics were balanced across the trial arms.

The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival, objective response rate by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by PD-L1 subgroups. Exploratory endpoints included safety/tolerability.
 

Results prompt FDA approval

Dr. Reck and colleagues found significantly better OS with nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, in comparison with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .0006).

With longer follow-up (minimum 12.7 months), nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide longer OS compared with chemotherapy alone. The median OS was 15.6 months and 10.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.66).

Despite more patients receiving subsequent systemic therapy in the chemotherapy-alone arm (34% of whom eventually received an immune checkpoint inhibitor), the immunotherapy-chemotherapy arm still yielded superior OS in the overall population.

One-year OS rates were 63% in the immunotherapy arm and 47% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were seen. The median response duration was 11.3 months in the immunotherapy arm and 5.6 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Benefit was consistent by all efficacy measures and in all subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression and histology.

Based on the strength of these results, in May, the Food and Drug Administration approved nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy for the frontline treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.


 

Challenges to overcome

In the forest plots for OS, the 70 patients who were 75 years of age and older had inferior survival with the combination regimen, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity was reported in 47% of patients in the immunotherapy arm and 38% of those in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

With nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy, more adverse events were considered serious (25.4% vs. 15%). Furthermore, grade 3-4 adverse events led to a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in the immunotherapy arm than in the chemotherapy-alone arm (16% vs. 5%).

Although cross-trial comparisons are treacherous, in CheckMate 227, only 12% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab stopped treatment because of a grade 3-4 adverse event.
 

Better by design

In the updated analysis of CheckMate 227 (ASCO 2020, Abstract 9500), the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen showed inferior OS results for the first 6 months of treatment, with more disease progression during that time. However, at 6 months, the OS curves crossed over to become consistently superior for the immunotherapy regimen thereafter.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is thought to augment antitumor immunity by inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing tumor neoantigen expression, and disturbing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that prevents immune detection.

Therefore, CheckMate 9LA incorporated a short exposure to chemotherapy for the patients receiving nivolumab-ipilimumab in an effort to attain rapid disease control and retain the durable OS benefit that was seen with dual immunotherapy in CheckMate 227.

Indeed, in CheckMate 9LA, the Kaplan-Meier curves in both the initial and follow-up OS analyses diverged early in favor of the nivolumab-ipilimumab plus chemotherapy regimen and never crossed the curve for chemotherapy alone. Progressive disease was observed in fewer patients with the immunotherapy combination than with chemotherapy alone.

Longer follow-up needed

In recent years, a large number of treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients have emerged. In the current report of CheckMate 9LA, the OS curve extended only to 27 months.

As was noted by invited discussant Benjamin Levy, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, it may be premature to put the regimen of two cycles of chemotherapy plus dual checkpoint/CTLA4 blockade in its proper context until follow-up extends for 3-5 years.

It would be ideal to know whether the tail of the OS curve will flatten out.
 

Do the best you can

Clinical investigators have a responsibility to retain the successes of prior regimens while overcoming the challenges of adverse events. New regimens also need to be practical when applied in general oncology practice.

In 2014, the American poet Maya Angelou advised, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better.” In many regards, the immunotherapy-chemotherapy combination tested in CheckMate 9LA appears to do better than preceding regimens.

Further refinements in dose, schedule, and supportive care, as well as real-time reporting of and response to patient-reported outcomes, will likely help us build on the CheckMate 9LA regimen and do even better.


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

SOURCE: Reck M et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9501.

Patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) whose disease has progressed after or during treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy now have a new option to try — lurbinectedin (Zepzelca, Jazz Pharma/PharmaMar).

The drug was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on response data. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the FDA notes.

“Small-cell lung cancer is a disease with limited treatment options,” said Bruce Cozadd, chairman and CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals. “While patients may initially respond to traditional chemotherapy, they often experience an aggressive recurrence that is historically resistant to treatment.”

“Seeing first-hand the aggressive nature of SCLC and knowing that the large majority of those diagnosed will experience relapse, I am excited to see an effective new treatment demonstrating durable responses,” Jeff Petty, MD, oncology specialist, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, commented in the company press release. This new drug “is an important and much-needed addition to the treatment landscape for relapsing SCLC,” he added.
 

Approval based on monotherapy trial

The approval is based on a monotherapy clinical trial in 105 patients, which was published in May in Lancet Oncology, with first author José Trigo, MD, from the Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria in Malaga, Spain.  

These were adult patients with both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant SCLC who had disease progression after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. They were treated at 26 hospitals across six European countries and the US. All patients received lurbinectedin at 3.2 mg/m² by intravenous infusion over 1 hour. Median follow-up was 17.1 months.

Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 (35.2%) of the 105 patients. The response was greater (at 45%) among the patients with platinum-sensitive disease and smaller (22.2%) among those with platinum-resistant disease.

Lurbinectedin demonstrated a median duration of response of 5.3 months as measured by investigator assessment.

In a post-hoc analysis, among the 37 patients who had an initial objective response, the median overall survival was just over 1 year (12.6 months). It was even longer among patients who had platinum-sensitive disease (15.8 months), although it was shorter in patients with resistant disease (10.9 months).

These data are “particularly encouraging,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Oscar Arrieta, MD, from the Thoracic Oncology Unit at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, Mexico. These response rates “outperform all previous results achieved with topotecan and other less established treatment schemes including cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine, or platinum re-challenge, in this setting.”

“Lurbinectedin represents an innovative approach to conventional anti-cancer drugs, with an elegant mechanism of action based on the inhibition of transcription-dependent replication stress and genome instability of tumor cells,” the editorialists comment. “The drug binds to specific DNA triplets commonly found in transcription sites and triggers cellular apoptosis.”

“At present, the only evidence-based second-line treatment approved for SCLC is topotecan, a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor with moderate activity in patients with sensitive disease, although its effect is much less evident in patients with resistant SCLC,” they continue.

“Overall, the study by Trigo and colleagues presents novel data for a very challenging disease for which few treatment options exist, and the data on response and survival do seem to outperform data from historical controls,” Arrieta and colleagues write.

The editorialists also note that, in this trial, a few patients had received immunotherapy as part of their first-line treatment, and some of these patients (5 of 8 patients, 68%) had “an outstanding rate of durable response to lurbinectedin.” This raises the possibility of a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and lurbinectedin, as the combination seems to enhance immune memory and impair subsequent tumor growth, they add. Further trials will need to explore sequencing of therapy, they suggest.

A large phase 3 study known as ATLANTIS is currently underway.  

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the present trial were hematologic abnormalities: anemia (9% of patients), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10% of patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (5% each). No treatment-related deaths were reported.

The study was funded by PharmaMar. Trigo and coauthors, and Arrieta and fellow editorialists, all report relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as detailed in the published articles.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) whose disease has progressed after or during treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy now have a new option to try — lurbinectedin (Zepzelca, Jazz Pharma/PharmaMar).

The drug was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on response data. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the FDA notes.

“Small-cell lung cancer is a disease with limited treatment options,” said Bruce Cozadd, chairman and CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals. “While patients may initially respond to traditional chemotherapy, they often experience an aggressive recurrence that is historically resistant to treatment.”

“Seeing first-hand the aggressive nature of SCLC and knowing that the large majority of those diagnosed will experience relapse, I am excited to see an effective new treatment demonstrating durable responses,” Jeff Petty, MD, oncology specialist, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, commented in the company press release. This new drug “is an important and much-needed addition to the treatment landscape for relapsing SCLC,” he added.
 

Approval based on monotherapy trial

The approval is based on a monotherapy clinical trial in 105 patients, which was published in May in Lancet Oncology, with first author José Trigo, MD, from the Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria in Malaga, Spain.  

These were adult patients with both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant SCLC who had disease progression after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. They were treated at 26 hospitals across six European countries and the US. All patients received lurbinectedin at 3.2 mg/m² by intravenous infusion over 1 hour. Median follow-up was 17.1 months.

Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 (35.2%) of the 105 patients. The response was greater (at 45%) among the patients with platinum-sensitive disease and smaller (22.2%) among those with platinum-resistant disease.

Lurbinectedin demonstrated a median duration of response of 5.3 months as measured by investigator assessment.

In a post-hoc analysis, among the 37 patients who had an initial objective response, the median overall survival was just over 1 year (12.6 months). It was even longer among patients who had platinum-sensitive disease (15.8 months), although it was shorter in patients with resistant disease (10.9 months).

These data are “particularly encouraging,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Oscar Arrieta, MD, from the Thoracic Oncology Unit at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, Mexico. These response rates “outperform all previous results achieved with topotecan and other less established treatment schemes including cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine, or platinum re-challenge, in this setting.”

“Lurbinectedin represents an innovative approach to conventional anti-cancer drugs, with an elegant mechanism of action based on the inhibition of transcription-dependent replication stress and genome instability of tumor cells,” the editorialists comment. “The drug binds to specific DNA triplets commonly found in transcription sites and triggers cellular apoptosis.”

“At present, the only evidence-based second-line treatment approved for SCLC is topotecan, a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor with moderate activity in patients with sensitive disease, although its effect is much less evident in patients with resistant SCLC,” they continue.

“Overall, the study by Trigo and colleagues presents novel data for a very challenging disease for which few treatment options exist, and the data on response and survival do seem to outperform data from historical controls,” Arrieta and colleagues write.

The editorialists also note that, in this trial, a few patients had received immunotherapy as part of their first-line treatment, and some of these patients (5 of 8 patients, 68%) had “an outstanding rate of durable response to lurbinectedin.” This raises the possibility of a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and lurbinectedin, as the combination seems to enhance immune memory and impair subsequent tumor growth, they add. Further trials will need to explore sequencing of therapy, they suggest.

A large phase 3 study known as ATLANTIS is currently underway.  

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the present trial were hematologic abnormalities: anemia (9% of patients), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10% of patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (5% each). No treatment-related deaths were reported.

The study was funded by PharmaMar. Trigo and coauthors, and Arrieta and fellow editorialists, all report relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as detailed in the published articles.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) whose disease has progressed after or during treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy now have a new option to try — lurbinectedin (Zepzelca, Jazz Pharma/PharmaMar).

The drug was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on response data. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the FDA notes.

“Small-cell lung cancer is a disease with limited treatment options,” said Bruce Cozadd, chairman and CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals. “While patients may initially respond to traditional chemotherapy, they often experience an aggressive recurrence that is historically resistant to treatment.”

“Seeing first-hand the aggressive nature of SCLC and knowing that the large majority of those diagnosed will experience relapse, I am excited to see an effective new treatment demonstrating durable responses,” Jeff Petty, MD, oncology specialist, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, commented in the company press release. This new drug “is an important and much-needed addition to the treatment landscape for relapsing SCLC,” he added.
 

Approval based on monotherapy trial

The approval is based on a monotherapy clinical trial in 105 patients, which was published in May in Lancet Oncology, with first author José Trigo, MD, from the Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria in Malaga, Spain.  

These were adult patients with both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant SCLC who had disease progression after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. They were treated at 26 hospitals across six European countries and the US. All patients received lurbinectedin at 3.2 mg/m² by intravenous infusion over 1 hour. Median follow-up was 17.1 months.

Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 (35.2%) of the 105 patients. The response was greater (at 45%) among the patients with platinum-sensitive disease and smaller (22.2%) among those with platinum-resistant disease.

Lurbinectedin demonstrated a median duration of response of 5.3 months as measured by investigator assessment.

In a post-hoc analysis, among the 37 patients who had an initial objective response, the median overall survival was just over 1 year (12.6 months). It was even longer among patients who had platinum-sensitive disease (15.8 months), although it was shorter in patients with resistant disease (10.9 months).

These data are “particularly encouraging,” comment the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Oscar Arrieta, MD, from the Thoracic Oncology Unit at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, Mexico. These response rates “outperform all previous results achieved with topotecan and other less established treatment schemes including cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine, or platinum re-challenge, in this setting.”

“Lurbinectedin represents an innovative approach to conventional anti-cancer drugs, with an elegant mechanism of action based on the inhibition of transcription-dependent replication stress and genome instability of tumor cells,” the editorialists comment. “The drug binds to specific DNA triplets commonly found in transcription sites and triggers cellular apoptosis.”

“At present, the only evidence-based second-line treatment approved for SCLC is topotecan, a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor with moderate activity in patients with sensitive disease, although its effect is much less evident in patients with resistant SCLC,” they continue.

“Overall, the study by Trigo and colleagues presents novel data for a very challenging disease for which few treatment options exist, and the data on response and survival do seem to outperform data from historical controls,” Arrieta and colleagues write.

The editorialists also note that, in this trial, a few patients had received immunotherapy as part of their first-line treatment, and some of these patients (5 of 8 patients, 68%) had “an outstanding rate of durable response to lurbinectedin.” This raises the possibility of a synergistic effect between immunotherapy and lurbinectedin, as the combination seems to enhance immune memory and impair subsequent tumor growth, they add. Further trials will need to explore sequencing of therapy, they suggest.

A large phase 3 study known as ATLANTIS is currently underway.  

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the present trial were hematologic abnormalities: anemia (9% of patients), leukopenia (29%), neutropenia (46%), and thrombocytopenia (7%). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10% of patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (5% each). No treatment-related deaths were reported.

The study was funded by PharmaMar. Trigo and coauthors, and Arrieta and fellow editorialists, all report relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as detailed in the published articles.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations (P = .001), 45% lower odds of ED visits (P = .037), and 50% lower cumulative charges (P = .001), as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, interim senior director of population sciences at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000).

The hospital-at-home model of care provides hospital-level care in the comfort of the patient’s home and is a component of many healthcare systems worldwide. Although it was introduced in the United States more than 2 decades ago, it has not been widely adopted or studied specifically in oncology.

Most cancer treatment is provided on an outpatient basis, which means that patients experience significant adverse events, toxicities, and disease progression while they are at home. Thus, Mooney noted, patients tend to rely heavily on the ED and sometimes experience unplanned hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions.

“These care patterns are distressing to the patients and their families and tax healthcare resources,” she said. “They are even more concerning and salient as we endeavor to protect cancer patients and provide cancer care during a pandemic.”

Currently, strategies to evaluate and support cancer patients and caregivers at home are limited. In 2018, the Huntsman Cancer Institute implemented Huntsman at Home, a demonstration project to evaluate the utility of an oncology hospital-at-home model.
 

Significantly Fewer Unplanned Hospitalizations

Huntsman at Home is run by nurse practitioner and registered nurse teams who deliver acute-level care at home. Physicians provide backup support for both medical oncology and palliative care. Nurse practitioners also work directly with the patient’s oncology team to coordinate care needs, including services such as social work and physical therapy.

To evaluate the hospital-at-home model, Mooney and colleagues compared patients who were enrolled in the program with those who received usual care. The usual-care comparison group was drawn from patients who lived in the Salt Lake City area. These patients would have qualified for enrollment in the Huntsman at Home program, but they lived outside the 20-mile service area.

The cohort included 367 patients (169 Huntsman at Home patients and 198 usual-care patients). Of those patients, 77% had stage IV cancer. A range of cancer types was represented; the most common were colon, gynecologic, prostate, and lung cancers. As compared to the usual-care group, those in the home model were more likely to be women (61% vs 43%).

During the first 30 days after admission, Huntsman at Home patients had significantly fewer unplanned hospitalizations (19.5% vs 35.4%) and a shorter length of stay (1.4 vs 2.6 days). Their care was also less expensive. The estimated charges for the hospital-at-home patients was $10,238, compared with $21,363 for the usual-care patients. There was no real difference in stays in the intensive care unit between the two groups.

Mooney noted that since there have been few studies of the hospital-at-home model for oncology patients, the investigators’ initial focus was on patients at hospital discharge who needed continued acute-level care and those who had acute problems identified through their oncology care clinic. Therefore, patients were not admitted to the program directly from emergency services, and chemotherapy infusions were not provided, although these are “other areas to consider in an oncology hospital-at-home model.”

Other limitations of the study were that it was not a randomized trial, and the evaluation was from a single program located at one comprehensive cancer center.

“These findings provide the oncology community with an opportunity to rethink cancer care as solely hospital- and clinic-based and instead reimagine care delivery that moves with the patient with key components provided at home,” said Mooney. “We plan to continue the development and evaluation of Huntsman at Home and extend care to admission from the emergency department.”

She added that, together with Flatiron Health, they are validating a tool to prospectively predict, on the basis of the likelihood of ED use, which patients may benefit from Huntsman at Home support. They also plan to extend care to patients who live at a distance from the cancer center and in rural communities, and may include chemotherapy infusion services.

Palliative Care Patients Prefer Home-Based Treatment

In a discussion of the paper, Lynne Wagner, PhD, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy with the Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and a member of the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, explained that some “aspects of healthcare are more translatable to a virtual or alternative delivery model than others. An area of cancer care greatly in need of innovation and quality improvement pertains to the management of oncologic emergencies.”

She pointed out that optimal care for oncologic emergencies requires the “intersection of oncology and emergency medicine specialists,” but there are often no well-defined processes for care coordination in place.

“Emergency department utilization could be reduced through greater precision with regard to risk stratification and early intervention and improved outpatient management, including improved symptom management,” said Wagner.

Wagner suggested that research should incorporate patient-reported outcomes so as to measure patient-centered benefits of home-based care. “Patients who are receiving palliative care services prefer home-based care, and it’s reasonable to anticipate this finding would extrapolate to the investigator’s target population,” she said. “However, there may also be unanticipated consequences, potentially including increased anxiety or increased burden on caretakers.”

In addition, the tangible and intangible costs associated with traveling to receive healthcare services and time away from work can be reduced with home-based care, and this should also be quantified. “The costs associated with COVID infection should be estimated to realize the full economic value of this care model, given significant reductions in cohort exposure afforded by home-based visits,” Wagner added.

The Huntsman at Home program is funded by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. The evaluation was funded by the Cambia Health Foundation. Mooney has a consulting or advisory role with Cognitive Medical System, Inc, and has patents, royalties, and other intellectual property for the development of Symptom Care at Home, a remote symptom-monitoring platform developed through research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute. No royalties have been received to date. Wagner has relationships with Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Johnson & Johnson.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations (P = .001), 45% lower odds of ED visits (P = .037), and 50% lower cumulative charges (P = .001), as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, interim senior director of population sciences at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000).

The hospital-at-home model of care provides hospital-level care in the comfort of the patient’s home and is a component of many healthcare systems worldwide. Although it was introduced in the United States more than 2 decades ago, it has not been widely adopted or studied specifically in oncology.

Most cancer treatment is provided on an outpatient basis, which means that patients experience significant adverse events, toxicities, and disease progression while they are at home. Thus, Mooney noted, patients tend to rely heavily on the ED and sometimes experience unplanned hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions.

“These care patterns are distressing to the patients and their families and tax healthcare resources,” she said. “They are even more concerning and salient as we endeavor to protect cancer patients and provide cancer care during a pandemic.”

Currently, strategies to evaluate and support cancer patients and caregivers at home are limited. In 2018, the Huntsman Cancer Institute implemented Huntsman at Home, a demonstration project to evaluate the utility of an oncology hospital-at-home model.
 

Significantly Fewer Unplanned Hospitalizations

Huntsman at Home is run by nurse practitioner and registered nurse teams who deliver acute-level care at home. Physicians provide backup support for both medical oncology and palliative care. Nurse practitioners also work directly with the patient’s oncology team to coordinate care needs, including services such as social work and physical therapy.

To evaluate the hospital-at-home model, Mooney and colleagues compared patients who were enrolled in the program with those who received usual care. The usual-care comparison group was drawn from patients who lived in the Salt Lake City area. These patients would have qualified for enrollment in the Huntsman at Home program, but they lived outside the 20-mile service area.

The cohort included 367 patients (169 Huntsman at Home patients and 198 usual-care patients). Of those patients, 77% had stage IV cancer. A range of cancer types was represented; the most common were colon, gynecologic, prostate, and lung cancers. As compared to the usual-care group, those in the home model were more likely to be women (61% vs 43%).

During the first 30 days after admission, Huntsman at Home patients had significantly fewer unplanned hospitalizations (19.5% vs 35.4%) and a shorter length of stay (1.4 vs 2.6 days). Their care was also less expensive. The estimated charges for the hospital-at-home patients was $10,238, compared with $21,363 for the usual-care patients. There was no real difference in stays in the intensive care unit between the two groups.

Mooney noted that since there have been few studies of the hospital-at-home model for oncology patients, the investigators’ initial focus was on patients at hospital discharge who needed continued acute-level care and those who had acute problems identified through their oncology care clinic. Therefore, patients were not admitted to the program directly from emergency services, and chemotherapy infusions were not provided, although these are “other areas to consider in an oncology hospital-at-home model.”

Other limitations of the study were that it was not a randomized trial, and the evaluation was from a single program located at one comprehensive cancer center.

“These findings provide the oncology community with an opportunity to rethink cancer care as solely hospital- and clinic-based and instead reimagine care delivery that moves with the patient with key components provided at home,” said Mooney. “We plan to continue the development and evaluation of Huntsman at Home and extend care to admission from the emergency department.”

She added that, together with Flatiron Health, they are validating a tool to prospectively predict, on the basis of the likelihood of ED use, which patients may benefit from Huntsman at Home support. They also plan to extend care to patients who live at a distance from the cancer center and in rural communities, and may include chemotherapy infusion services.

Palliative Care Patients Prefer Home-Based Treatment

In a discussion of the paper, Lynne Wagner, PhD, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy with the Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and a member of the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, explained that some “aspects of healthcare are more translatable to a virtual or alternative delivery model than others. An area of cancer care greatly in need of innovation and quality improvement pertains to the management of oncologic emergencies.”

She pointed out that optimal care for oncologic emergencies requires the “intersection of oncology and emergency medicine specialists,” but there are often no well-defined processes for care coordination in place.

“Emergency department utilization could be reduced through greater precision with regard to risk stratification and early intervention and improved outpatient management, including improved symptom management,” said Wagner.

Wagner suggested that research should incorporate patient-reported outcomes so as to measure patient-centered benefits of home-based care. “Patients who are receiving palliative care services prefer home-based care, and it’s reasonable to anticipate this finding would extrapolate to the investigator’s target population,” she said. “However, there may also be unanticipated consequences, potentially including increased anxiety or increased burden on caretakers.”

In addition, the tangible and intangible costs associated with traveling to receive healthcare services and time away from work can be reduced with home-based care, and this should also be quantified. “The costs associated with COVID infection should be estimated to realize the full economic value of this care model, given significant reductions in cohort exposure afforded by home-based visits,” Wagner added.

The Huntsman at Home program is funded by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. The evaluation was funded by the Cambia Health Foundation. Mooney has a consulting or advisory role with Cognitive Medical System, Inc, and has patents, royalties, and other intellectual property for the development of Symptom Care at Home, a remote symptom-monitoring platform developed through research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute. No royalties have been received to date. Wagner has relationships with Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Johnson & Johnson.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations (P = .001), 45% lower odds of ED visits (P = .037), and 50% lower cumulative charges (P = .001), as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, interim senior director of population sciences at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000).

The hospital-at-home model of care provides hospital-level care in the comfort of the patient’s home and is a component of many healthcare systems worldwide. Although it was introduced in the United States more than 2 decades ago, it has not been widely adopted or studied specifically in oncology.

Most cancer treatment is provided on an outpatient basis, which means that patients experience significant adverse events, toxicities, and disease progression while they are at home. Thus, Mooney noted, patients tend to rely heavily on the ED and sometimes experience unplanned hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions.

“These care patterns are distressing to the patients and their families and tax healthcare resources,” she said. “They are even more concerning and salient as we endeavor to protect cancer patients and provide cancer care during a pandemic.”

Currently, strategies to evaluate and support cancer patients and caregivers at home are limited. In 2018, the Huntsman Cancer Institute implemented Huntsman at Home, a demonstration project to evaluate the utility of an oncology hospital-at-home model.
 

Significantly Fewer Unplanned Hospitalizations

Huntsman at Home is run by nurse practitioner and registered nurse teams who deliver acute-level care at home. Physicians provide backup support for both medical oncology and palliative care. Nurse practitioners also work directly with the patient’s oncology team to coordinate care needs, including services such as social work and physical therapy.

To evaluate the hospital-at-home model, Mooney and colleagues compared patients who were enrolled in the program with those who received usual care. The usual-care comparison group was drawn from patients who lived in the Salt Lake City area. These patients would have qualified for enrollment in the Huntsman at Home program, but they lived outside the 20-mile service area.

The cohort included 367 patients (169 Huntsman at Home patients and 198 usual-care patients). Of those patients, 77% had stage IV cancer. A range of cancer types was represented; the most common were colon, gynecologic, prostate, and lung cancers. As compared to the usual-care group, those in the home model were more likely to be women (61% vs 43%).

During the first 30 days after admission, Huntsman at Home patients had significantly fewer unplanned hospitalizations (19.5% vs 35.4%) and a shorter length of stay (1.4 vs 2.6 days). Their care was also less expensive. The estimated charges for the hospital-at-home patients was $10,238, compared with $21,363 for the usual-care patients. There was no real difference in stays in the intensive care unit between the two groups.

Mooney noted that since there have been few studies of the hospital-at-home model for oncology patients, the investigators’ initial focus was on patients at hospital discharge who needed continued acute-level care and those who had acute problems identified through their oncology care clinic. Therefore, patients were not admitted to the program directly from emergency services, and chemotherapy infusions were not provided, although these are “other areas to consider in an oncology hospital-at-home model.”

Other limitations of the study were that it was not a randomized trial, and the evaluation was from a single program located at one comprehensive cancer center.

“These findings provide the oncology community with an opportunity to rethink cancer care as solely hospital- and clinic-based and instead reimagine care delivery that moves with the patient with key components provided at home,” said Mooney. “We plan to continue the development and evaluation of Huntsman at Home and extend care to admission from the emergency department.”

She added that, together with Flatiron Health, they are validating a tool to prospectively predict, on the basis of the likelihood of ED use, which patients may benefit from Huntsman at Home support. They also plan to extend care to patients who live at a distance from the cancer center and in rural communities, and may include chemotherapy infusion services.

Palliative Care Patients Prefer Home-Based Treatment

In a discussion of the paper, Lynne Wagner, PhD, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy with the Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and a member of the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, explained that some “aspects of healthcare are more translatable to a virtual or alternative delivery model than others. An area of cancer care greatly in need of innovation and quality improvement pertains to the management of oncologic emergencies.”

She pointed out that optimal care for oncologic emergencies requires the “intersection of oncology and emergency medicine specialists,” but there are often no well-defined processes for care coordination in place.

“Emergency department utilization could be reduced through greater precision with regard to risk stratification and early intervention and improved outpatient management, including improved symptom management,” said Wagner.

Wagner suggested that research should incorporate patient-reported outcomes so as to measure patient-centered benefits of home-based care. “Patients who are receiving palliative care services prefer home-based care, and it’s reasonable to anticipate this finding would extrapolate to the investigator’s target population,” she said. “However, there may also be unanticipated consequences, potentially including increased anxiety or increased burden on caretakers.”

In addition, the tangible and intangible costs associated with traveling to receive healthcare services and time away from work can be reduced with home-based care, and this should also be quantified. “The costs associated with COVID infection should be estimated to realize the full economic value of this care model, given significant reductions in cohort exposure afforded by home-based visits,” Wagner added.

The Huntsman at Home program is funded by the Huntsman Cancer Institute. The evaluation was funded by the Cambia Health Foundation. Mooney has a consulting or advisory role with Cognitive Medical System, Inc, and has patents, royalties, and other intellectual property for the development of Symptom Care at Home, a remote symptom-monitoring platform developed through research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute. No royalties have been received to date. Wagner has relationships with Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, and Johnson & Johnson.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new retrospective study provides some of the strongest support yet for considering first-line stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) over whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in carefully selected patients with brain metastases from small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), the researchers say.

As expected, WBRT was superior to focused SRS in lengthening the time to disease progression in the brain. However, this advantage did not appear to provide an improvement in overall survival (OS).

“This study suggests that the trade-offs inherent to first-line SRS without WBRT, including a shorter time to new brain metastases without an apparent difference in overall survival, may be similar to other settings where SRS alone is already well established,” lead author Chad Rusthoven, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Upfront SRS may be “particularly attractive for SCLC patients with limited brain metastases and those at a higher risk of developing neurocognitive toxicity from WBRT, including older patients and those with a poor baseline performance status,” said Rusthoven, of the Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Results of the FIRE-SCLC study – the largest analysis of first-line SRS for patients with SCLC brain metastases – were published online June 4 in JAMA Oncology.

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Oncology say the FIRE-SCLC study investigators should be “commended for conducting this important work and also for highlighting the inherent limitations of retrospective data.”

“Even after multivariable adjustment, OS may not be directly compared between the SRS and WBRT groups because selection bias is likely,” caution Cecile Le Pechoux, MD, and Antonin Levy, MD, PhD, from Institut Gustave-Roussy in Villejuif, France.

“Impressive” Outcomes

The researchers analyzed the outcomes of 710 patients (mean age, 68.5 years; 75% men; Karnofsky Performance Status score, ≥90) who underwent first-line SRS without prior treatment with WBRT or prophylactic cranial irradiation. They compared the SRS outcomes with outcomes of a cohort of 219 patients treated with first-line WBRT for SCLC brain metastases.

The SRS outcomes are “encouraging,” with a median OS of 8.5 months, median time to central nervous system (CNS) progression (TTCP) of 8.1 months, and median CNS progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.0 months, the study investigators say.

The outcomes are “particularly impressive” in patients with a single brain metastasis (median OS and TTCP, 11.0 months and 11.7 months, respectively), they note.

They found no significant differences in OS or TTCP after SRS in patients with two to four lesions and those with five to 10 lesions.

Median OS was 8.7 months with two to four lesions, 8.0 months with five to 10 lesions, and 5.5 months with 11 or more lesions. Corresponding median TTCP was 6.8, 6.1, and 4.7 months.

Local failures after SRS were rare. Most CNS progression occurred in the form of new lesions, which is in line with what’s been shown with SRS in other settings.

In propensity score–matched analyses that compared SRS with WBRT, median OS was higher with SRS (6.5 months vs 5.2 months with WBRT; P = .003). Median TTCP was improved with WBRT (SRS, 9.0 months vs WBRT, not reached; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 – 0.55; P < .001), with no significant difference in CNS PFS (median, 4.0 months for SRS vs 3.8 months for WBRT; P = .79).

The results were similar in multivariable analyses that compared SRS and WBRT, including subgroup analyses that controlled for extracranial metastases and extracranial disease control status.

Benchmark Data

“Although these retrospective data should not be used to conclude that OS is superior with SRS, the findings of this study suggest that the primary trade-offs associated with SRS without WBRT, including a shorter TTCP, are similar to other settings in which SRS alone is well established by multiple randomized clinical trials,” the researchers write.

These data, they say, provide a “benchmark for SRS outcomes and offer support to first-line SRS as a treatment option in carefully selected patients with small-cell lung cancer.”

In a news release, senior author Tyler Robin, MD, University of Colorado School of Medicine, notes that paradigms for the treatment of SCLC are “evolving,” with the integration of immunotherapy into SCLC management, less use of WBRT, and guideline updates advising routine brain MRI surveillance for all patients.

“These changes may be expected to increase the identification of small-cell lung cancer patients with limited brain metastases who may be candidates for first-line SRS,” said Robin.

SRS made mainstream headlines in 2015 when former President Jimmy Carter was successfully treated for melanoma brain metastases with it. At the time, SRS was relatively new. The approach is more targeted and less toxic than traditional WBRT. Carter was treated at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

SRS is now widely available in the United States, but adoption has been slow, Rusthoven told Medscape Medical News.

“Delayed adoption of SRS for SCLC is related to a number of factors, including a concern for short-interval CNS progression with SCLC histology and the historical exclusion of SCLC patients from the landmark randomized trials that established SRS alone,” he said.

“We hope that this study will contribute to an increased interest in the role of SRS for carefully selected SCLC patients and that it will offer support to ongoing and developing prospective clinical trials evaluating first-line SRS alone for SCLC,” Rusthoven added.

Prospective Data “Eagerly” Needed

The French editorial writers say prospective data are “eagerly needed” for this patient population.

SRS, they conclude, “might be a promising treatment option” for patients with SCLC with brain metastases, but larger studies are needed, as prophylactic cranial irradiation or prophylactic-intent WBRT has been shown to improve survival. “Hopefully, the work of Rusthoven et al will be used for the development of further prospective trials in patients with SCLC with brain metastases,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Colorado Cancer Center. Rusthoven has received research funding from Takeda outside the submitted work as well as honoraria for educational talks from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside this work. The original article contains a complete list of author disclosures. Le Pechoux has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Nanobiotix, and Roche; institutional honoraria for participation to educational meetings from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Medscape, and Eli Lilly and Company; and personal honoraria from prIME Oncology for participation in educational meetings. Levy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new retrospective study provides some of the strongest support yet for considering first-line stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) over whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in carefully selected patients with brain metastases from small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), the researchers say.

As expected, WBRT was superior to focused SRS in lengthening the time to disease progression in the brain. However, this advantage did not appear to provide an improvement in overall survival (OS).

“This study suggests that the trade-offs inherent to first-line SRS without WBRT, including a shorter time to new brain metastases without an apparent difference in overall survival, may be similar to other settings where SRS alone is already well established,” lead author Chad Rusthoven, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Upfront SRS may be “particularly attractive for SCLC patients with limited brain metastases and those at a higher risk of developing neurocognitive toxicity from WBRT, including older patients and those with a poor baseline performance status,” said Rusthoven, of the Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Results of the FIRE-SCLC study – the largest analysis of first-line SRS for patients with SCLC brain metastases – were published online June 4 in JAMA Oncology.

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Oncology say the FIRE-SCLC study investigators should be “commended for conducting this important work and also for highlighting the inherent limitations of retrospective data.”

“Even after multivariable adjustment, OS may not be directly compared between the SRS and WBRT groups because selection bias is likely,” caution Cecile Le Pechoux, MD, and Antonin Levy, MD, PhD, from Institut Gustave-Roussy in Villejuif, France.

“Impressive” Outcomes

The researchers analyzed the outcomes of 710 patients (mean age, 68.5 years; 75% men; Karnofsky Performance Status score, ≥90) who underwent first-line SRS without prior treatment with WBRT or prophylactic cranial irradiation. They compared the SRS outcomes with outcomes of a cohort of 219 patients treated with first-line WBRT for SCLC brain metastases.

The SRS outcomes are “encouraging,” with a median OS of 8.5 months, median time to central nervous system (CNS) progression (TTCP) of 8.1 months, and median CNS progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.0 months, the study investigators say.

The outcomes are “particularly impressive” in patients with a single brain metastasis (median OS and TTCP, 11.0 months and 11.7 months, respectively), they note.

They found no significant differences in OS or TTCP after SRS in patients with two to four lesions and those with five to 10 lesions.

Median OS was 8.7 months with two to four lesions, 8.0 months with five to 10 lesions, and 5.5 months with 11 or more lesions. Corresponding median TTCP was 6.8, 6.1, and 4.7 months.

Local failures after SRS were rare. Most CNS progression occurred in the form of new lesions, which is in line with what’s been shown with SRS in other settings.

In propensity score–matched analyses that compared SRS with WBRT, median OS was higher with SRS (6.5 months vs 5.2 months with WBRT; P = .003). Median TTCP was improved with WBRT (SRS, 9.0 months vs WBRT, not reached; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 – 0.55; P < .001), with no significant difference in CNS PFS (median, 4.0 months for SRS vs 3.8 months for WBRT; P = .79).

The results were similar in multivariable analyses that compared SRS and WBRT, including subgroup analyses that controlled for extracranial metastases and extracranial disease control status.

Benchmark Data

“Although these retrospective data should not be used to conclude that OS is superior with SRS, the findings of this study suggest that the primary trade-offs associated with SRS without WBRT, including a shorter TTCP, are similar to other settings in which SRS alone is well established by multiple randomized clinical trials,” the researchers write.

These data, they say, provide a “benchmark for SRS outcomes and offer support to first-line SRS as a treatment option in carefully selected patients with small-cell lung cancer.”

In a news release, senior author Tyler Robin, MD, University of Colorado School of Medicine, notes that paradigms for the treatment of SCLC are “evolving,” with the integration of immunotherapy into SCLC management, less use of WBRT, and guideline updates advising routine brain MRI surveillance for all patients.

“These changes may be expected to increase the identification of small-cell lung cancer patients with limited brain metastases who may be candidates for first-line SRS,” said Robin.

SRS made mainstream headlines in 2015 when former President Jimmy Carter was successfully treated for melanoma brain metastases with it. At the time, SRS was relatively new. The approach is more targeted and less toxic than traditional WBRT. Carter was treated at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

SRS is now widely available in the United States, but adoption has been slow, Rusthoven told Medscape Medical News.

“Delayed adoption of SRS for SCLC is related to a number of factors, including a concern for short-interval CNS progression with SCLC histology and the historical exclusion of SCLC patients from the landmark randomized trials that established SRS alone,” he said.

“We hope that this study will contribute to an increased interest in the role of SRS for carefully selected SCLC patients and that it will offer support to ongoing and developing prospective clinical trials evaluating first-line SRS alone for SCLC,” Rusthoven added.

Prospective Data “Eagerly” Needed

The French editorial writers say prospective data are “eagerly needed” for this patient population.

SRS, they conclude, “might be a promising treatment option” for patients with SCLC with brain metastases, but larger studies are needed, as prophylactic cranial irradiation or prophylactic-intent WBRT has been shown to improve survival. “Hopefully, the work of Rusthoven et al will be used for the development of further prospective trials in patients with SCLC with brain metastases,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Colorado Cancer Center. Rusthoven has received research funding from Takeda outside the submitted work as well as honoraria for educational talks from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside this work. The original article contains a complete list of author disclosures. Le Pechoux has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Nanobiotix, and Roche; institutional honoraria for participation to educational meetings from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Medscape, and Eli Lilly and Company; and personal honoraria from prIME Oncology for participation in educational meetings. Levy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new retrospective study provides some of the strongest support yet for considering first-line stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) over whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in carefully selected patients with brain metastases from small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), the researchers say.

As expected, WBRT was superior to focused SRS in lengthening the time to disease progression in the brain. However, this advantage did not appear to provide an improvement in overall survival (OS).

“This study suggests that the trade-offs inherent to first-line SRS without WBRT, including a shorter time to new brain metastases without an apparent difference in overall survival, may be similar to other settings where SRS alone is already well established,” lead author Chad Rusthoven, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Upfront SRS may be “particularly attractive for SCLC patients with limited brain metastases and those at a higher risk of developing neurocognitive toxicity from WBRT, including older patients and those with a poor baseline performance status,” said Rusthoven, of the Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Results of the FIRE-SCLC study – the largest analysis of first-line SRS for patients with SCLC brain metastases – were published online June 4 in JAMA Oncology.

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Oncology say the FIRE-SCLC study investigators should be “commended for conducting this important work and also for highlighting the inherent limitations of retrospective data.”

“Even after multivariable adjustment, OS may not be directly compared between the SRS and WBRT groups because selection bias is likely,” caution Cecile Le Pechoux, MD, and Antonin Levy, MD, PhD, from Institut Gustave-Roussy in Villejuif, France.

“Impressive” Outcomes

The researchers analyzed the outcomes of 710 patients (mean age, 68.5 years; 75% men; Karnofsky Performance Status score, ≥90) who underwent first-line SRS without prior treatment with WBRT or prophylactic cranial irradiation. They compared the SRS outcomes with outcomes of a cohort of 219 patients treated with first-line WBRT for SCLC brain metastases.

The SRS outcomes are “encouraging,” with a median OS of 8.5 months, median time to central nervous system (CNS) progression (TTCP) of 8.1 months, and median CNS progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.0 months, the study investigators say.

The outcomes are “particularly impressive” in patients with a single brain metastasis (median OS and TTCP, 11.0 months and 11.7 months, respectively), they note.

They found no significant differences in OS or TTCP after SRS in patients with two to four lesions and those with five to 10 lesions.

Median OS was 8.7 months with two to four lesions, 8.0 months with five to 10 lesions, and 5.5 months with 11 or more lesions. Corresponding median TTCP was 6.8, 6.1, and 4.7 months.

Local failures after SRS were rare. Most CNS progression occurred in the form of new lesions, which is in line with what’s been shown with SRS in other settings.

In propensity score–matched analyses that compared SRS with WBRT, median OS was higher with SRS (6.5 months vs 5.2 months with WBRT; P = .003). Median TTCP was improved with WBRT (SRS, 9.0 months vs WBRT, not reached; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 – 0.55; P < .001), with no significant difference in CNS PFS (median, 4.0 months for SRS vs 3.8 months for WBRT; P = .79).

The results were similar in multivariable analyses that compared SRS and WBRT, including subgroup analyses that controlled for extracranial metastases and extracranial disease control status.

Benchmark Data

“Although these retrospective data should not be used to conclude that OS is superior with SRS, the findings of this study suggest that the primary trade-offs associated with SRS without WBRT, including a shorter TTCP, are similar to other settings in which SRS alone is well established by multiple randomized clinical trials,” the researchers write.

These data, they say, provide a “benchmark for SRS outcomes and offer support to first-line SRS as a treatment option in carefully selected patients with small-cell lung cancer.”

In a news release, senior author Tyler Robin, MD, University of Colorado School of Medicine, notes that paradigms for the treatment of SCLC are “evolving,” with the integration of immunotherapy into SCLC management, less use of WBRT, and guideline updates advising routine brain MRI surveillance for all patients.

“These changes may be expected to increase the identification of small-cell lung cancer patients with limited brain metastases who may be candidates for first-line SRS,” said Robin.

SRS made mainstream headlines in 2015 when former President Jimmy Carter was successfully treated for melanoma brain metastases with it. At the time, SRS was relatively new. The approach is more targeted and less toxic than traditional WBRT. Carter was treated at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

SRS is now widely available in the United States, but adoption has been slow, Rusthoven told Medscape Medical News.

“Delayed adoption of SRS for SCLC is related to a number of factors, including a concern for short-interval CNS progression with SCLC histology and the historical exclusion of SCLC patients from the landmark randomized trials that established SRS alone,” he said.

“We hope that this study will contribute to an increased interest in the role of SRS for carefully selected SCLC patients and that it will offer support to ongoing and developing prospective clinical trials evaluating first-line SRS alone for SCLC,” Rusthoven added.

Prospective Data “Eagerly” Needed

The French editorial writers say prospective data are “eagerly needed” for this patient population.

SRS, they conclude, “might be a promising treatment option” for patients with SCLC with brain metastases, but larger studies are needed, as prophylactic cranial irradiation or prophylactic-intent WBRT has been shown to improve survival. “Hopefully, the work of Rusthoven et al will be used for the development of further prospective trials in patients with SCLC with brain metastases,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Colorado Cancer Center. Rusthoven has received research funding from Takeda outside the submitted work as well as honoraria for educational talks from Genentech and AstraZeneca outside this work. The original article contains a complete list of author disclosures. Le Pechoux has received institutional honoraria for participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Nanobiotix, and Roche; institutional honoraria for participation to educational meetings from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Medscape, and Eli Lilly and Company; and personal honoraria from prIME Oncology for participation in educational meetings. Levy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.