User login
20% with cancer on checkpoint inhibitors get thyroid dysfunction
new research suggests.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.
In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.
Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.
Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.
“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.
However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”
Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”
“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”
‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’
Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.
A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.
“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.
In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.
Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”
Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.
“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.
Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type
And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”
“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”
The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.
The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.
One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.
“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.
Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.
In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.
Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.
Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.
“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.
However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”
Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”
“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”
‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’
Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.
A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.
“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.
In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.
Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”
Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.
“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.
Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type
And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”
“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”
The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.
The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.
One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.
“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.
Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.
In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.
Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.
Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.
“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.
However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”
Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”
“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”
‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’
Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.
A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.
“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.
In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.
Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”
Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.
“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.
Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type
And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”
“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”
The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.
The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.
One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.
“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.
Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
No staff COVID-19 diagnoses after plan at Chinese cancer center
Short-term results
No staff members or patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 after “strict protective measures” for screening and managing patients were implemented at the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, according to a report published online April 1 in JAMA Oncology.
However, the time period for the analysis, which included nearly 3000 patients, was short — only about 3 weeks (February 12 to March 3). Also, Beijing is more than 1100 kilometers from Wuhan, the center of the Chinese outbreak of COVID-19.
The Beijing cancer hospital implemented a multipronged safety plan in February in order to “avoid COVID-19 related nosocomial cross-infection between patients and medical staff,” explain the authors, led by medical oncologist Zhijie Wang, MD.
Notably, “all of the measures taken in China are actively being implemented and used in major oncology centers in the United States,” Robert Carlson, MD, chief executive officer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), told Medscape Medical News.
John Greene, MD, section chief, Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, pointed out that the Chinese safety plan, which is full of “good measures,” is being largely used at his center. However, he observed that one tool — doing a temperature check at the hospital front door — is not well supported by most of the literature. “It gives good optics and looks like you are doing the most you possibly can, but scientifically it may not be as effective [as other screening measures],” he said.
The Chinese plan consists of four broad elements
First, the above-mentioned on-site temperature tests are performed at the entrances of the hospital, outpatient clinic, and wards. Contact and travel histories related to the Wuhan epidemic area are also established and recorded.
Second, an outpatient appointment scheduling system allows both online scheduling and on-site registration. Online consultation channels are open daily, featuring instruction on medication taking and cancer-related symptom management. These “substantially reduced the flow of people in the hospital,” write the authors. On-site patients must wear a mask and have their own disinfectant.
Third, for patients with cancer preparing to be admitted to hospital, symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as fever and cough, are recorded. Mandatory blood tests and CT scans of the lungs are performed. COVID-19 virus nucleic acid tests are performed for patients with suspected pneumonia on imaging.
Fourth, some anticancer drugs conventionally administered by infusion have been changed to oral administration, such as etoposide and vinorelbine. For adjuvant or maintenance chemotherapy, the infusion intervals were appropriately prolonged depending on patients’ conditions.
Eight out of 2,900 patients had imaging suspicious for infection
The Chinese authors report that a total of 2,944 patients with cancer were seen for clinic consultation and treatment in the wards (2795 outpatients and 149 inpatients).
Patients with cancer are believed to have a higher probability of severe illness and increased mortality compared with the healthy population once infected with COVID-19, point out the authors.
Under the new “strict screening strategy,” 27 patients showed radiologic manifestations of inflammatory changes or multiple-site exudative pneumonia in the lungs, including eight suspected of having COVID-19 infection. “Fortunately, negative results from nucleic acid testing ultimately excluded COVID-19 infection in all these patients,” the authors report.
However, two of these patients “presented with recovered pneumonia after symptomatic treatment.” Commenting on this finding, Moffitt’s Greene said that may mean these two patients were tested and found to be positive but were early in the infection and not yet shedding the virus, or they were infected after the initial negative result.
Greene said his center has implemented some measures not mentioned in the Chinese plan. For example, the Florida center no longer allows inpatient visitation. Also, one third of staff now work from home, resulting in less social interaction. Social distancing in meetings, the cafeteria, and hallways is being observed “aggressively,” and most meetings are now on Zoom, he said.
Moffitt has not been hard hit with COVID-19 and is at level one preparedness, the lowest rung. The center has performed 60 tests to date, with only one positive for the virus (< 2%), Greene told Medscape Medical News.
Currently, in the larger Tampa Bay community setting, about 12% of tests are positive.
The low percentage found among the Moffitt patients “tells you that a lot of cancer patients have fever and respiratory symptoms due to other viruses and, more importantly, other reasons, whether it’s their immunotherapy or chemotherapy or their cancer,” said Greene.
NCCN’s Carlson said the publication of the Chinese data was a good sign in terms of international science.
“This is a strong example of how the global oncology community rapidly shares information and experience whenever it makes a difference in patient care,” he commented.
The authors, as well as Carlson and Greene, have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Short-term results
Short-term results
No staff members or patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 after “strict protective measures” for screening and managing patients were implemented at the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, according to a report published online April 1 in JAMA Oncology.
However, the time period for the analysis, which included nearly 3000 patients, was short — only about 3 weeks (February 12 to March 3). Also, Beijing is more than 1100 kilometers from Wuhan, the center of the Chinese outbreak of COVID-19.
The Beijing cancer hospital implemented a multipronged safety plan in February in order to “avoid COVID-19 related nosocomial cross-infection between patients and medical staff,” explain the authors, led by medical oncologist Zhijie Wang, MD.
Notably, “all of the measures taken in China are actively being implemented and used in major oncology centers in the United States,” Robert Carlson, MD, chief executive officer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), told Medscape Medical News.
John Greene, MD, section chief, Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, pointed out that the Chinese safety plan, which is full of “good measures,” is being largely used at his center. However, he observed that one tool — doing a temperature check at the hospital front door — is not well supported by most of the literature. “It gives good optics and looks like you are doing the most you possibly can, but scientifically it may not be as effective [as other screening measures],” he said.
The Chinese plan consists of four broad elements
First, the above-mentioned on-site temperature tests are performed at the entrances of the hospital, outpatient clinic, and wards. Contact and travel histories related to the Wuhan epidemic area are also established and recorded.
Second, an outpatient appointment scheduling system allows both online scheduling and on-site registration. Online consultation channels are open daily, featuring instruction on medication taking and cancer-related symptom management. These “substantially reduced the flow of people in the hospital,” write the authors. On-site patients must wear a mask and have their own disinfectant.
Third, for patients with cancer preparing to be admitted to hospital, symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as fever and cough, are recorded. Mandatory blood tests and CT scans of the lungs are performed. COVID-19 virus nucleic acid tests are performed for patients with suspected pneumonia on imaging.
Fourth, some anticancer drugs conventionally administered by infusion have been changed to oral administration, such as etoposide and vinorelbine. For adjuvant or maintenance chemotherapy, the infusion intervals were appropriately prolonged depending on patients’ conditions.
Eight out of 2,900 patients had imaging suspicious for infection
The Chinese authors report that a total of 2,944 patients with cancer were seen for clinic consultation and treatment in the wards (2795 outpatients and 149 inpatients).
Patients with cancer are believed to have a higher probability of severe illness and increased mortality compared with the healthy population once infected with COVID-19, point out the authors.
Under the new “strict screening strategy,” 27 patients showed radiologic manifestations of inflammatory changes or multiple-site exudative pneumonia in the lungs, including eight suspected of having COVID-19 infection. “Fortunately, negative results from nucleic acid testing ultimately excluded COVID-19 infection in all these patients,” the authors report.
However, two of these patients “presented with recovered pneumonia after symptomatic treatment.” Commenting on this finding, Moffitt’s Greene said that may mean these two patients were tested and found to be positive but were early in the infection and not yet shedding the virus, or they were infected after the initial negative result.
Greene said his center has implemented some measures not mentioned in the Chinese plan. For example, the Florida center no longer allows inpatient visitation. Also, one third of staff now work from home, resulting in less social interaction. Social distancing in meetings, the cafeteria, and hallways is being observed “aggressively,” and most meetings are now on Zoom, he said.
Moffitt has not been hard hit with COVID-19 and is at level one preparedness, the lowest rung. The center has performed 60 tests to date, with only one positive for the virus (< 2%), Greene told Medscape Medical News.
Currently, in the larger Tampa Bay community setting, about 12% of tests are positive.
The low percentage found among the Moffitt patients “tells you that a lot of cancer patients have fever and respiratory symptoms due to other viruses and, more importantly, other reasons, whether it’s their immunotherapy or chemotherapy or their cancer,” said Greene.
NCCN’s Carlson said the publication of the Chinese data was a good sign in terms of international science.
“This is a strong example of how the global oncology community rapidly shares information and experience whenever it makes a difference in patient care,” he commented.
The authors, as well as Carlson and Greene, have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
No staff members or patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 after “strict protective measures” for screening and managing patients were implemented at the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, according to a report published online April 1 in JAMA Oncology.
However, the time period for the analysis, which included nearly 3000 patients, was short — only about 3 weeks (February 12 to March 3). Also, Beijing is more than 1100 kilometers from Wuhan, the center of the Chinese outbreak of COVID-19.
The Beijing cancer hospital implemented a multipronged safety plan in February in order to “avoid COVID-19 related nosocomial cross-infection between patients and medical staff,” explain the authors, led by medical oncologist Zhijie Wang, MD.
Notably, “all of the measures taken in China are actively being implemented and used in major oncology centers in the United States,” Robert Carlson, MD, chief executive officer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), told Medscape Medical News.
John Greene, MD, section chief, Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, pointed out that the Chinese safety plan, which is full of “good measures,” is being largely used at his center. However, he observed that one tool — doing a temperature check at the hospital front door — is not well supported by most of the literature. “It gives good optics and looks like you are doing the most you possibly can, but scientifically it may not be as effective [as other screening measures],” he said.
The Chinese plan consists of four broad elements
First, the above-mentioned on-site temperature tests are performed at the entrances of the hospital, outpatient clinic, and wards. Contact and travel histories related to the Wuhan epidemic area are also established and recorded.
Second, an outpatient appointment scheduling system allows both online scheduling and on-site registration. Online consultation channels are open daily, featuring instruction on medication taking and cancer-related symptom management. These “substantially reduced the flow of people in the hospital,” write the authors. On-site patients must wear a mask and have their own disinfectant.
Third, for patients with cancer preparing to be admitted to hospital, symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as fever and cough, are recorded. Mandatory blood tests and CT scans of the lungs are performed. COVID-19 virus nucleic acid tests are performed for patients with suspected pneumonia on imaging.
Fourth, some anticancer drugs conventionally administered by infusion have been changed to oral administration, such as etoposide and vinorelbine. For adjuvant or maintenance chemotherapy, the infusion intervals were appropriately prolonged depending on patients’ conditions.
Eight out of 2,900 patients had imaging suspicious for infection
The Chinese authors report that a total of 2,944 patients with cancer were seen for clinic consultation and treatment in the wards (2795 outpatients and 149 inpatients).
Patients with cancer are believed to have a higher probability of severe illness and increased mortality compared with the healthy population once infected with COVID-19, point out the authors.
Under the new “strict screening strategy,” 27 patients showed radiologic manifestations of inflammatory changes or multiple-site exudative pneumonia in the lungs, including eight suspected of having COVID-19 infection. “Fortunately, negative results from nucleic acid testing ultimately excluded COVID-19 infection in all these patients,” the authors report.
However, two of these patients “presented with recovered pneumonia after symptomatic treatment.” Commenting on this finding, Moffitt’s Greene said that may mean these two patients were tested and found to be positive but were early in the infection and not yet shedding the virus, or they were infected after the initial negative result.
Greene said his center has implemented some measures not mentioned in the Chinese plan. For example, the Florida center no longer allows inpatient visitation. Also, one third of staff now work from home, resulting in less social interaction. Social distancing in meetings, the cafeteria, and hallways is being observed “aggressively,” and most meetings are now on Zoom, he said.
Moffitt has not been hard hit with COVID-19 and is at level one preparedness, the lowest rung. The center has performed 60 tests to date, with only one positive for the virus (< 2%), Greene told Medscape Medical News.
Currently, in the larger Tampa Bay community setting, about 12% of tests are positive.
The low percentage found among the Moffitt patients “tells you that a lot of cancer patients have fever and respiratory symptoms due to other viruses and, more importantly, other reasons, whether it’s their immunotherapy or chemotherapy or their cancer,” said Greene.
NCCN’s Carlson said the publication of the Chinese data was a good sign in terms of international science.
“This is a strong example of how the global oncology community rapidly shares information and experience whenever it makes a difference in patient care,” he commented.
The authors, as well as Carlson and Greene, have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Maintaining cancer care in the face of COVID-19
Medical oncologist Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, is scrambling to maintain cancer care in New Haven, Connecticut, while COVID-19 advances unrelentingly. As deputy chief medical officer of the Smilow Cancer Network, the largest cancer care delivery system in Connecticut and Rhode Island, she has no illusions about dodging what’s unfolding just 2 hours down the road in New York City.
“They’re trying their best to continue active cancer treatment but it’s getting harder,” she says of her colleagues in the thick of the pandemic. “We have to be prepared for it here.”
In anticipation of what’s coming, her team has just emptied the top three floors of the Smilow Cancer Hospital, moving 60 patients by ambulance and other medical transport to a different hospital nearby.
The move frees the Smilow Cancer hospital’s negative-pressure wards for the anticipated wave of COVID-19 patients. It will keep the virus sealed off from the rest of the hospital. But in other locations it’s harder to shield patients with cancer from the infection.
Around the state, Smilow Cancer Network’s affiliated hospitals are already treating a growing number of COVID-19 patients, especially at Greenwich Hospital, right on the border with New York state.
To protect patients with cancer, who are among the most vulnerable to the virus, oncologists are embracing telemedicine to allow most patients to stay home.
“We’re really concentrating on decreasing the risk to these patients, with a widespread massive-scale conversion to telehealth,” said Chiang. “This is something that, in the space of about a week, has transformed the care of our patients — it’s a really amazing transformation.”
If anything good comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be this global adoption of virtual healthcare.
Across the US border in Canada, the medical director of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre is directing a similar transformation.
“We have converted probably about 70% to 80% of our clinic visits to virtual visits,” says radiation oncologist Mary Gospodarowicz, MD.
“We have three priorities: number one, to keep our patients safe; number two, to keep our staff safe, because if staff are sick we won’t be treating anybody; and number three, to treat as many patients with cancer as possible.”
Gospodarowicz woke up last week to a local headline about a woman whose mastectomy had been canceled “because of the coronavirus.” The story exposed the many layers of the COVID-19 crisis. “A lot of hospitals have canceled elective surgeries,” she acknowledged. “For patients who have treatment or surgery deferred, we have a database and we’ll make sure we look after those patients eventually. We have a priority system, so low-risk prostate cancer, very low-risk breast cancer patients are waiting. All the urgent head and neck, breast, and other higher priority surgeries are still being done, but it just depends how it goes. The situation changes every day.”
It’s similar in Los Angeles, at the University of Southern California, says Elizabeth David, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon with Keck Medicine.
“For thoracic, we just had a conference call with about 30 surgeons around the country going through really nitty-gritty specifics to help with our decision making about what could wait without detriment to the patient – hopefully – and what should be done now,” she told Medscape Medical News.
“There are some hospitals where they are not doing anything but life and death emergency operations, whereas we are still doing our emergent cancer operations in our institution, but we all know – and patients know – that could change from one day to the next. They may think they’re having surgery tomorrow but may get a call saying we can’t do it,” David said.
Many of David’s patients have non–small cell lung cancer, putting them at particular risk with a pulmonary infection like COVID-19. For now, she says delivery of postsurgical chemotherapy and radiotherapy has not been impacted in her area, but her videoconference discussions with patients are much longer – and harder – these days.
“I’ve been in practice a while now and I’ve had numerous conversations with patients this week that I never trained for, and I’ve never known anyone else who has. It’s really hard as a provider to know what to say,” she said.
In cardiothoracic surgery, David said guidance on clinical decision making is coming from the American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgery, and American Association of Thoracic Surgeons. Yet, she says each patient is being assessed – and reassessed – individually.
“You have to balance the risk of delaying the intervention with supply issues, hospital exposure issues, the danger to the patient of being in the hospital environment – there’s just so many factors. We’re spending so much time talking through cases, and a lot of times we’re talking about cases we already talked about, but we’re just making sure that based on today’s numbers we should still be moving forward,” she commented.
In Connecticut, Chiang said treatment decisions are also mostly on a case-by-case basis at the moment, although more standardized guidelines are being worked out.
“Our disease teams have been really proactive in terms of offering alternative solutions to patients, creative ways to basically keep them out of the hospital and also reduce the immunosuppressive regimens that we give them,” she said.
Examples include offering endocrine therapy to patients who can’t get breast cancer surgery, or offering alternative drug regimens and dosing schedules. “At this point we haven’t needed to ration actual treatment – patients are continuing to get active therapy if that’s appropriate – it’s more about how can we protect them,” she said. “It’s a complex puzzle of moving pieces.”
In Toronto, Gospodarowicz says newly published medical and radiation oncology guidelines from France are the backbone of her hospital’s policy discussions about treating cancer and protecting patients from COVID-19.
While patients’ concerns are understandable, she says even in the current hot spots of infection, it’s encouraging to know that cancer patients are not being forgotten.
“I recently had email communication with a radiation oncologist in Brescia, one of the worst-affected areas in Italy, and he told me the radiotherapy department has been 60% to 70% capacity, so they still treat 70% these patients, just taking precautions and separating the COVID-positive and negative ones. When we read the stats it looks horrible, but life still goes on and people are still being treated,” she said.
Although telemedicine offers meaningful solutions to the COVID-19 crisis in North America, it may not be possible in other parts of the world.
Web consultations were only just approved in Brazil this week. “We are still discussing how to make it official and reimbursed,” says Rachel Riechelmann, MD, head of clinical oncology at AC Camargo Cancer Center in São Paulo.
To minimize infection risk for patients, Riechelmann says her hospital is doing the following: postponing surgeries in cases where there is good evidence of neoadjuvant treatment, such as total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer; avoiding adjuvant chemo for stage 2 colon cancer; moving to hypofractionated radiotherapy if possible; adopting watchful waiting in grade 1 nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumors; and postponing follow-up visits.
“We do our best,” she wrote in an email. “We keep treating cancer if treatment cannot wait.”
Riechelmann’s center has just launched a trial of hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in patients with cancer who have severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
Meanwhile in New Haven, Chiang says for patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19, her team is also prognosticating about the fair allocation of limited resources such as ventilators.
“If it ever gets to the point where somebody has to choose between a cancer patient and a noncancer patient in providing life support, it’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays and even with a diagnosis of cancer they can potentially live for many years, so that shouldn’t necessarily be a decision-point,” she emphasized.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medical oncologist Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, is scrambling to maintain cancer care in New Haven, Connecticut, while COVID-19 advances unrelentingly. As deputy chief medical officer of the Smilow Cancer Network, the largest cancer care delivery system in Connecticut and Rhode Island, she has no illusions about dodging what’s unfolding just 2 hours down the road in New York City.
“They’re trying their best to continue active cancer treatment but it’s getting harder,” she says of her colleagues in the thick of the pandemic. “We have to be prepared for it here.”
In anticipation of what’s coming, her team has just emptied the top three floors of the Smilow Cancer Hospital, moving 60 patients by ambulance and other medical transport to a different hospital nearby.
The move frees the Smilow Cancer hospital’s negative-pressure wards for the anticipated wave of COVID-19 patients. It will keep the virus sealed off from the rest of the hospital. But in other locations it’s harder to shield patients with cancer from the infection.
Around the state, Smilow Cancer Network’s affiliated hospitals are already treating a growing number of COVID-19 patients, especially at Greenwich Hospital, right on the border with New York state.
To protect patients with cancer, who are among the most vulnerable to the virus, oncologists are embracing telemedicine to allow most patients to stay home.
“We’re really concentrating on decreasing the risk to these patients, with a widespread massive-scale conversion to telehealth,” said Chiang. “This is something that, in the space of about a week, has transformed the care of our patients — it’s a really amazing transformation.”
If anything good comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be this global adoption of virtual healthcare.
Across the US border in Canada, the medical director of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre is directing a similar transformation.
“We have converted probably about 70% to 80% of our clinic visits to virtual visits,” says radiation oncologist Mary Gospodarowicz, MD.
“We have three priorities: number one, to keep our patients safe; number two, to keep our staff safe, because if staff are sick we won’t be treating anybody; and number three, to treat as many patients with cancer as possible.”
Gospodarowicz woke up last week to a local headline about a woman whose mastectomy had been canceled “because of the coronavirus.” The story exposed the many layers of the COVID-19 crisis. “A lot of hospitals have canceled elective surgeries,” she acknowledged. “For patients who have treatment or surgery deferred, we have a database and we’ll make sure we look after those patients eventually. We have a priority system, so low-risk prostate cancer, very low-risk breast cancer patients are waiting. All the urgent head and neck, breast, and other higher priority surgeries are still being done, but it just depends how it goes. The situation changes every day.”
It’s similar in Los Angeles, at the University of Southern California, says Elizabeth David, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon with Keck Medicine.
“For thoracic, we just had a conference call with about 30 surgeons around the country going through really nitty-gritty specifics to help with our decision making about what could wait without detriment to the patient – hopefully – and what should be done now,” she told Medscape Medical News.
“There are some hospitals where they are not doing anything but life and death emergency operations, whereas we are still doing our emergent cancer operations in our institution, but we all know – and patients know – that could change from one day to the next. They may think they’re having surgery tomorrow but may get a call saying we can’t do it,” David said.
Many of David’s patients have non–small cell lung cancer, putting them at particular risk with a pulmonary infection like COVID-19. For now, she says delivery of postsurgical chemotherapy and radiotherapy has not been impacted in her area, but her videoconference discussions with patients are much longer – and harder – these days.
“I’ve been in practice a while now and I’ve had numerous conversations with patients this week that I never trained for, and I’ve never known anyone else who has. It’s really hard as a provider to know what to say,” she said.
In cardiothoracic surgery, David said guidance on clinical decision making is coming from the American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgery, and American Association of Thoracic Surgeons. Yet, she says each patient is being assessed – and reassessed – individually.
“You have to balance the risk of delaying the intervention with supply issues, hospital exposure issues, the danger to the patient of being in the hospital environment – there’s just so many factors. We’re spending so much time talking through cases, and a lot of times we’re talking about cases we already talked about, but we’re just making sure that based on today’s numbers we should still be moving forward,” she commented.
In Connecticut, Chiang said treatment decisions are also mostly on a case-by-case basis at the moment, although more standardized guidelines are being worked out.
“Our disease teams have been really proactive in terms of offering alternative solutions to patients, creative ways to basically keep them out of the hospital and also reduce the immunosuppressive regimens that we give them,” she said.
Examples include offering endocrine therapy to patients who can’t get breast cancer surgery, or offering alternative drug regimens and dosing schedules. “At this point we haven’t needed to ration actual treatment – patients are continuing to get active therapy if that’s appropriate – it’s more about how can we protect them,” she said. “It’s a complex puzzle of moving pieces.”
In Toronto, Gospodarowicz says newly published medical and radiation oncology guidelines from France are the backbone of her hospital’s policy discussions about treating cancer and protecting patients from COVID-19.
While patients’ concerns are understandable, she says even in the current hot spots of infection, it’s encouraging to know that cancer patients are not being forgotten.
“I recently had email communication with a radiation oncologist in Brescia, one of the worst-affected areas in Italy, and he told me the radiotherapy department has been 60% to 70% capacity, so they still treat 70% these patients, just taking precautions and separating the COVID-positive and negative ones. When we read the stats it looks horrible, but life still goes on and people are still being treated,” she said.
Although telemedicine offers meaningful solutions to the COVID-19 crisis in North America, it may not be possible in other parts of the world.
Web consultations were only just approved in Brazil this week. “We are still discussing how to make it official and reimbursed,” says Rachel Riechelmann, MD, head of clinical oncology at AC Camargo Cancer Center in São Paulo.
To minimize infection risk for patients, Riechelmann says her hospital is doing the following: postponing surgeries in cases where there is good evidence of neoadjuvant treatment, such as total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer; avoiding adjuvant chemo for stage 2 colon cancer; moving to hypofractionated radiotherapy if possible; adopting watchful waiting in grade 1 nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumors; and postponing follow-up visits.
“We do our best,” she wrote in an email. “We keep treating cancer if treatment cannot wait.”
Riechelmann’s center has just launched a trial of hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in patients with cancer who have severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
Meanwhile in New Haven, Chiang says for patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19, her team is also prognosticating about the fair allocation of limited resources such as ventilators.
“If it ever gets to the point where somebody has to choose between a cancer patient and a noncancer patient in providing life support, it’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays and even with a diagnosis of cancer they can potentially live for many years, so that shouldn’t necessarily be a decision-point,” she emphasized.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medical oncologist Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, is scrambling to maintain cancer care in New Haven, Connecticut, while COVID-19 advances unrelentingly. As deputy chief medical officer of the Smilow Cancer Network, the largest cancer care delivery system in Connecticut and Rhode Island, she has no illusions about dodging what’s unfolding just 2 hours down the road in New York City.
“They’re trying their best to continue active cancer treatment but it’s getting harder,” she says of her colleagues in the thick of the pandemic. “We have to be prepared for it here.”
In anticipation of what’s coming, her team has just emptied the top three floors of the Smilow Cancer Hospital, moving 60 patients by ambulance and other medical transport to a different hospital nearby.
The move frees the Smilow Cancer hospital’s negative-pressure wards for the anticipated wave of COVID-19 patients. It will keep the virus sealed off from the rest of the hospital. But in other locations it’s harder to shield patients with cancer from the infection.
Around the state, Smilow Cancer Network’s affiliated hospitals are already treating a growing number of COVID-19 patients, especially at Greenwich Hospital, right on the border with New York state.
To protect patients with cancer, who are among the most vulnerable to the virus, oncologists are embracing telemedicine to allow most patients to stay home.
“We’re really concentrating on decreasing the risk to these patients, with a widespread massive-scale conversion to telehealth,” said Chiang. “This is something that, in the space of about a week, has transformed the care of our patients — it’s a really amazing transformation.”
If anything good comes out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be this global adoption of virtual healthcare.
Across the US border in Canada, the medical director of Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre is directing a similar transformation.
“We have converted probably about 70% to 80% of our clinic visits to virtual visits,” says radiation oncologist Mary Gospodarowicz, MD.
“We have three priorities: number one, to keep our patients safe; number two, to keep our staff safe, because if staff are sick we won’t be treating anybody; and number three, to treat as many patients with cancer as possible.”
Gospodarowicz woke up last week to a local headline about a woman whose mastectomy had been canceled “because of the coronavirus.” The story exposed the many layers of the COVID-19 crisis. “A lot of hospitals have canceled elective surgeries,” she acknowledged. “For patients who have treatment or surgery deferred, we have a database and we’ll make sure we look after those patients eventually. We have a priority system, so low-risk prostate cancer, very low-risk breast cancer patients are waiting. All the urgent head and neck, breast, and other higher priority surgeries are still being done, but it just depends how it goes. The situation changes every day.”
It’s similar in Los Angeles, at the University of Southern California, says Elizabeth David, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon with Keck Medicine.
“For thoracic, we just had a conference call with about 30 surgeons around the country going through really nitty-gritty specifics to help with our decision making about what could wait without detriment to the patient – hopefully – and what should be done now,” she told Medscape Medical News.
“There are some hospitals where they are not doing anything but life and death emergency operations, whereas we are still doing our emergent cancer operations in our institution, but we all know – and patients know – that could change from one day to the next. They may think they’re having surgery tomorrow but may get a call saying we can’t do it,” David said.
Many of David’s patients have non–small cell lung cancer, putting them at particular risk with a pulmonary infection like COVID-19. For now, she says delivery of postsurgical chemotherapy and radiotherapy has not been impacted in her area, but her videoconference discussions with patients are much longer – and harder – these days.
“I’ve been in practice a while now and I’ve had numerous conversations with patients this week that I never trained for, and I’ve never known anyone else who has. It’s really hard as a provider to know what to say,” she said.
In cardiothoracic surgery, David said guidance on clinical decision making is coming from the American College of Surgeons, Society of Thoracic Surgery, and American Association of Thoracic Surgeons. Yet, she says each patient is being assessed – and reassessed – individually.
“You have to balance the risk of delaying the intervention with supply issues, hospital exposure issues, the danger to the patient of being in the hospital environment – there’s just so many factors. We’re spending so much time talking through cases, and a lot of times we’re talking about cases we already talked about, but we’re just making sure that based on today’s numbers we should still be moving forward,” she commented.
In Connecticut, Chiang said treatment decisions are also mostly on a case-by-case basis at the moment, although more standardized guidelines are being worked out.
“Our disease teams have been really proactive in terms of offering alternative solutions to patients, creative ways to basically keep them out of the hospital and also reduce the immunosuppressive regimens that we give them,” she said.
Examples include offering endocrine therapy to patients who can’t get breast cancer surgery, or offering alternative drug regimens and dosing schedules. “At this point we haven’t needed to ration actual treatment – patients are continuing to get active therapy if that’s appropriate – it’s more about how can we protect them,” she said. “It’s a complex puzzle of moving pieces.”
In Toronto, Gospodarowicz says newly published medical and radiation oncology guidelines from France are the backbone of her hospital’s policy discussions about treating cancer and protecting patients from COVID-19.
While patients’ concerns are understandable, she says even in the current hot spots of infection, it’s encouraging to know that cancer patients are not being forgotten.
“I recently had email communication with a radiation oncologist in Brescia, one of the worst-affected areas in Italy, and he told me the radiotherapy department has been 60% to 70% capacity, so they still treat 70% these patients, just taking precautions and separating the COVID-positive and negative ones. When we read the stats it looks horrible, but life still goes on and people are still being treated,” she said.
Although telemedicine offers meaningful solutions to the COVID-19 crisis in North America, it may not be possible in other parts of the world.
Web consultations were only just approved in Brazil this week. “We are still discussing how to make it official and reimbursed,” says Rachel Riechelmann, MD, head of clinical oncology at AC Camargo Cancer Center in São Paulo.
To minimize infection risk for patients, Riechelmann says her hospital is doing the following: postponing surgeries in cases where there is good evidence of neoadjuvant treatment, such as total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer; avoiding adjuvant chemo for stage 2 colon cancer; moving to hypofractionated radiotherapy if possible; adopting watchful waiting in grade 1 nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumors; and postponing follow-up visits.
“We do our best,” she wrote in an email. “We keep treating cancer if treatment cannot wait.”
Riechelmann’s center has just launched a trial of hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in patients with cancer who have severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
Meanwhile in New Haven, Chiang says for patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19, her team is also prognosticating about the fair allocation of limited resources such as ventilators.
“If it ever gets to the point where somebody has to choose between a cancer patient and a noncancer patient in providing life support, it’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays and even with a diagnosis of cancer they can potentially live for many years, so that shouldn’t necessarily be a decision-point,” she emphasized.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Blood test might detect multiple cancer types, study suggests
Investigators led by Minetta C. Liu, MD, a medical oncologist with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., studied 6,689 participants – 2,482 with cancers of more than 50 types and 4,207 without cancer – drawn from the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas Study and the STRIVE Study populations.
The investigators performed bisulfite sequencing that targeted informative methylation regions of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and developed and validated a molecular classifier using methylation patterns to detect cancer and determine its tissue of origin.
Test performance was assessed both for cancer overall and for a prespecified set of 12 cancers (anus, bladder, colon/rectum, esophagus, head and neck, liver/bile duct, lung, lymphoma, ovary, pancreas, plasma cell neoplasm, stomach) that account for about 63% of U.S. cancer deaths annually.
Results reported this week in the Annals of Oncology showed that the test had a specificity of 99.3% in the validation cohort, corresponding to a false-positive rate of just 0.7%.
Sensitivity for detecting stage I-III disease was 43.9% for cancer overall and 67.3% for the prespecified set of cancers accounting for the majority of U.S. cancer deaths.
Test sensitivity increased with stage both for cancer overall (18%, 43%, 81%, and 93% for stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively) and for the prespecified set of cancers (39%, 69%, 83%, and 92%, respectively).
The test was able to predict a tissue of origin in 96% of samples in which a cancerlike signal was detected, and in 93% of cases, that prediction was accurate.
Some of the patients who had cancer were symptomatic and therefore would not be considered a screening population, Dr. Liu and coinvestigators acknowledged. Also, the test’s potential for reducing mortality remains unknown, and 1-year follow-up to verify cancer-free status was not yet available for all of the individuals without cancer.
“Together, these data provide compelling evidence that targeted methylation analysis of cfDNA can detect and localize a broad range of nonmetastatic and metastatic cancer types including many common and deadly cancers that lack effective screening strategies,” they maintained. The test’s “specificity and sensitivity performance approach ... the goal for population-level screening.”
“Considering the potential value of early detection in deadly malignancies, further evaluation of this test is justified in prospective population-level studies,” the investigators conclude. “Clinical validation in intended use populations is ongoing ... and a study has been initiated that is returning results to health care providers and patients ....”
Dr. Liu disclosed that the Mayo Clinic was compensated for her advisory board activities for GRAIL Inc. The study was supported by GRAIL, and by Princess Margaret Cancer Centre’s McCain Genitourinary BioBank in the department of surgical oncology.
SOURCE: Liu MC et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.011.
Investigators led by Minetta C. Liu, MD, a medical oncologist with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., studied 6,689 participants – 2,482 with cancers of more than 50 types and 4,207 without cancer – drawn from the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas Study and the STRIVE Study populations.
The investigators performed bisulfite sequencing that targeted informative methylation regions of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and developed and validated a molecular classifier using methylation patterns to detect cancer and determine its tissue of origin.
Test performance was assessed both for cancer overall and for a prespecified set of 12 cancers (anus, bladder, colon/rectum, esophagus, head and neck, liver/bile duct, lung, lymphoma, ovary, pancreas, plasma cell neoplasm, stomach) that account for about 63% of U.S. cancer deaths annually.
Results reported this week in the Annals of Oncology showed that the test had a specificity of 99.3% in the validation cohort, corresponding to a false-positive rate of just 0.7%.
Sensitivity for detecting stage I-III disease was 43.9% for cancer overall and 67.3% for the prespecified set of cancers accounting for the majority of U.S. cancer deaths.
Test sensitivity increased with stage both for cancer overall (18%, 43%, 81%, and 93% for stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively) and for the prespecified set of cancers (39%, 69%, 83%, and 92%, respectively).
The test was able to predict a tissue of origin in 96% of samples in which a cancerlike signal was detected, and in 93% of cases, that prediction was accurate.
Some of the patients who had cancer were symptomatic and therefore would not be considered a screening population, Dr. Liu and coinvestigators acknowledged. Also, the test’s potential for reducing mortality remains unknown, and 1-year follow-up to verify cancer-free status was not yet available for all of the individuals without cancer.
“Together, these data provide compelling evidence that targeted methylation analysis of cfDNA can detect and localize a broad range of nonmetastatic and metastatic cancer types including many common and deadly cancers that lack effective screening strategies,” they maintained. The test’s “specificity and sensitivity performance approach ... the goal for population-level screening.”
“Considering the potential value of early detection in deadly malignancies, further evaluation of this test is justified in prospective population-level studies,” the investigators conclude. “Clinical validation in intended use populations is ongoing ... and a study has been initiated that is returning results to health care providers and patients ....”
Dr. Liu disclosed that the Mayo Clinic was compensated for her advisory board activities for GRAIL Inc. The study was supported by GRAIL, and by Princess Margaret Cancer Centre’s McCain Genitourinary BioBank in the department of surgical oncology.
SOURCE: Liu MC et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.011.
Investigators led by Minetta C. Liu, MD, a medical oncologist with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., studied 6,689 participants – 2,482 with cancers of more than 50 types and 4,207 without cancer – drawn from the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas Study and the STRIVE Study populations.
The investigators performed bisulfite sequencing that targeted informative methylation regions of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and developed and validated a molecular classifier using methylation patterns to detect cancer and determine its tissue of origin.
Test performance was assessed both for cancer overall and for a prespecified set of 12 cancers (anus, bladder, colon/rectum, esophagus, head and neck, liver/bile duct, lung, lymphoma, ovary, pancreas, plasma cell neoplasm, stomach) that account for about 63% of U.S. cancer deaths annually.
Results reported this week in the Annals of Oncology showed that the test had a specificity of 99.3% in the validation cohort, corresponding to a false-positive rate of just 0.7%.
Sensitivity for detecting stage I-III disease was 43.9% for cancer overall and 67.3% for the prespecified set of cancers accounting for the majority of U.S. cancer deaths.
Test sensitivity increased with stage both for cancer overall (18%, 43%, 81%, and 93% for stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively) and for the prespecified set of cancers (39%, 69%, 83%, and 92%, respectively).
The test was able to predict a tissue of origin in 96% of samples in which a cancerlike signal was detected, and in 93% of cases, that prediction was accurate.
Some of the patients who had cancer were symptomatic and therefore would not be considered a screening population, Dr. Liu and coinvestigators acknowledged. Also, the test’s potential for reducing mortality remains unknown, and 1-year follow-up to verify cancer-free status was not yet available for all of the individuals without cancer.
“Together, these data provide compelling evidence that targeted methylation analysis of cfDNA can detect and localize a broad range of nonmetastatic and metastatic cancer types including many common and deadly cancers that lack effective screening strategies,” they maintained. The test’s “specificity and sensitivity performance approach ... the goal for population-level screening.”
“Considering the potential value of early detection in deadly malignancies, further evaluation of this test is justified in prospective population-level studies,” the investigators conclude. “Clinical validation in intended use populations is ongoing ... and a study has been initiated that is returning results to health care providers and patients ....”
Dr. Liu disclosed that the Mayo Clinic was compensated for her advisory board activities for GRAIL Inc. The study was supported by GRAIL, and by Princess Margaret Cancer Centre’s McCain Genitourinary BioBank in the department of surgical oncology.
SOURCE: Liu MC et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.011.
FROM ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
AI algorithm predicts treatment success in lung cancer patients
Radiomics signatures developed by artificial intelligence can predict sensitivity to treatment in adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.
“Radiomics features are calculated by algorithmic analysis of tumor images and have been linked to characteristics of NSCLC,” wrote Laurent Dercle, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.
With their study, the researchers found that “radiomic signatures, derived from quantitative, artificial intelligence–based analysis of standard-of-care CT images, offer the potential to enhance clinical decision-making as on-treatment markers of efficacy.”
The researchers identified 188 adults with NSCLC: 92 receiving nivolumab, 50 receiving docetaxel, and 46 receiving gefitinib.
The team extracted 1,160 radiomics features from the largest measurable lung lesion in each patient. The researchers used CT images from baseline and the patients’ first treatment assessment (3 weeks for gefitinib and 8 weeks for nivolumab and docetaxel) to develop a model that would predict treatment sensitivity based on changes to the largest lung lesion.
In validation sets following training sets, the prediction models for nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib yielded area under the curve results of 0.77, 0.67, and 0.82, respectively.
“Machine-learning techniques successfully performed a specific complex task: identifying a pattern of baseline and treatment-induced changes on CT images associated with sensitivity to systemic nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib therapy in patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC,” the researchers wrote.
They noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the inability to evaluate the impact of various time intervals on feature selection and classification.
However, the researchers concluded that “this study is a proof of concept that AI [artificial intelligence] support could provide clinicians an early indication of the likelihood of success of treatment with the new generation of systemic anticancer therapies using conventional imaging techniques.”
This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Institutes of Health, Fondation Philanthropia, and Fondation Nuovo-Soldati. The authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Bristol-Myers Squibb. They also disclosed relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Dercle L et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2942.
Radiomics signatures developed by artificial intelligence can predict sensitivity to treatment in adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.
“Radiomics features are calculated by algorithmic analysis of tumor images and have been linked to characteristics of NSCLC,” wrote Laurent Dercle, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.
With their study, the researchers found that “radiomic signatures, derived from quantitative, artificial intelligence–based analysis of standard-of-care CT images, offer the potential to enhance clinical decision-making as on-treatment markers of efficacy.”
The researchers identified 188 adults with NSCLC: 92 receiving nivolumab, 50 receiving docetaxel, and 46 receiving gefitinib.
The team extracted 1,160 radiomics features from the largest measurable lung lesion in each patient. The researchers used CT images from baseline and the patients’ first treatment assessment (3 weeks for gefitinib and 8 weeks for nivolumab and docetaxel) to develop a model that would predict treatment sensitivity based on changes to the largest lung lesion.
In validation sets following training sets, the prediction models for nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib yielded area under the curve results of 0.77, 0.67, and 0.82, respectively.
“Machine-learning techniques successfully performed a specific complex task: identifying a pattern of baseline and treatment-induced changes on CT images associated with sensitivity to systemic nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib therapy in patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC,” the researchers wrote.
They noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the inability to evaluate the impact of various time intervals on feature selection and classification.
However, the researchers concluded that “this study is a proof of concept that AI [artificial intelligence] support could provide clinicians an early indication of the likelihood of success of treatment with the new generation of systemic anticancer therapies using conventional imaging techniques.”
This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Institutes of Health, Fondation Philanthropia, and Fondation Nuovo-Soldati. The authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Bristol-Myers Squibb. They also disclosed relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Dercle L et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2942.
Radiomics signatures developed by artificial intelligence can predict sensitivity to treatment in adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.
“Radiomics features are calculated by algorithmic analysis of tumor images and have been linked to characteristics of NSCLC,” wrote Laurent Dercle, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.
With their study, the researchers found that “radiomic signatures, derived from quantitative, artificial intelligence–based analysis of standard-of-care CT images, offer the potential to enhance clinical decision-making as on-treatment markers of efficacy.”
The researchers identified 188 adults with NSCLC: 92 receiving nivolumab, 50 receiving docetaxel, and 46 receiving gefitinib.
The team extracted 1,160 radiomics features from the largest measurable lung lesion in each patient. The researchers used CT images from baseline and the patients’ first treatment assessment (3 weeks for gefitinib and 8 weeks for nivolumab and docetaxel) to develop a model that would predict treatment sensitivity based on changes to the largest lung lesion.
In validation sets following training sets, the prediction models for nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib yielded area under the curve results of 0.77, 0.67, and 0.82, respectively.
“Machine-learning techniques successfully performed a specific complex task: identifying a pattern of baseline and treatment-induced changes on CT images associated with sensitivity to systemic nivolumab, docetaxel, and gefitinib therapy in patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC,” the researchers wrote.
They noted that this study was limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the inability to evaluate the impact of various time intervals on feature selection and classification.
However, the researchers concluded that “this study is a proof of concept that AI [artificial intelligence] support could provide clinicians an early indication of the likelihood of success of treatment with the new generation of systemic anticancer therapies using conventional imaging techniques.”
This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the National Institutes of Health, Fondation Philanthropia, and Fondation Nuovo-Soldati. The authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Bristol-Myers Squibb. They also disclosed relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Dercle L et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2942.
FROM CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
CARAVAGGIO expands DOAC pool in cancer-related VTE
Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.
Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).
The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events).
There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).
However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.
Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.
The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.
“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.
“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”
The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.
Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.
The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).
During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.
“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.
Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.
Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.
“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”
As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”
Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.
Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.
Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.
She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”
Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.
Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.
The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.
Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).
The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events).
There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).
However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.
Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.
The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.
“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.
“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”
The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.
Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.
The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).
During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.
“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.
Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.
Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.
“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”
As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”
Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.
Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.
Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.
She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”
Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.
Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.
The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.
Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).
The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events).
There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).
However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.
Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.
The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.
“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.
“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”
The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.
Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.
The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).
During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.
“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.
Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.
Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.
“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”
As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”
Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.
Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.
Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.
She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”
Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.
Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.
The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs durvalumab combo for extensive-stage SCLC
The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the immunotherapy durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) in combination with etoposide and either carboplatin or cisplatin as first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).
Durvalumab plus chemotherapy “can be considered a new standard in ES-SCLC,” said Myung-Ju Ahn, MD, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, last year at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) annual meeting, where he discussed results from the phase 3 trial known as CASPIAN.
The new approval is based on efficacy and safety data from that trial, conducted in patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC. In the experimental group (n = 268), durvalumab plus etoposide and a platinum agent (EP) was followed by maintenance durvalumab, and in the control group (n = 269) patients received the EP regimen alone.
Median overall survival (OS) was 13 months in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group compared with 10.3 months in the chemotherapy alone group (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.91; P = .0047).
Reporting these results, trial investigator Luis Paz-Ares, MD, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, put the new survival benefit in the context of standard treatments at the ESMO meeting last year.
“Initial response rates to etoposide plus a platinum are high, but responses are not durable and patients treated with EP typically relapse within 6 months of starting treatment with a median OS of approximately 10 months,” he said.
In addition to the primary endpoint of OS, additional efficacy outcome measures were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR).
Median PFS was not statistically significant with immunotherapy; it was 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.7-6.2) in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.8-6.2) in the chemotherapy alone group (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94).
The investigator-assessed ORR was 68% in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 58% in the chemotherapy alone group.
The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) in patients with ES-SCLC were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and alopecia, according to the FDA.
At ESMO, Paz-Ares reported that rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were comparable at 30.9% and 36.1% for the durvalumab plus EP group vs. EP alone, respectively; rates of AEs leading to discontinuation were identical in both groups at 9.4%. Unsurprisingly, immune-mediated AEs were higher at 19.6% in the durvalumab combination group vs. 2.6% in the EP alone group.
In this setting, durvalumab is administered prior to chemotherapy on the same day. The recommended durvalumab dose (when administered with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin) is 1,500 mg every 3 weeks prior to chemotherapy and then every 4 weeks as a single-agent maintenance therapy.
Durvalumab is already approved for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer in patients whose tumors have only spread in the chest, and is also approved for use in urothelial cancer.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the immunotherapy durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) in combination with etoposide and either carboplatin or cisplatin as first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).
Durvalumab plus chemotherapy “can be considered a new standard in ES-SCLC,” said Myung-Ju Ahn, MD, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, last year at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) annual meeting, where he discussed results from the phase 3 trial known as CASPIAN.
The new approval is based on efficacy and safety data from that trial, conducted in patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC. In the experimental group (n = 268), durvalumab plus etoposide and a platinum agent (EP) was followed by maintenance durvalumab, and in the control group (n = 269) patients received the EP regimen alone.
Median overall survival (OS) was 13 months in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group compared with 10.3 months in the chemotherapy alone group (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.91; P = .0047).
Reporting these results, trial investigator Luis Paz-Ares, MD, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, put the new survival benefit in the context of standard treatments at the ESMO meeting last year.
“Initial response rates to etoposide plus a platinum are high, but responses are not durable and patients treated with EP typically relapse within 6 months of starting treatment with a median OS of approximately 10 months,” he said.
In addition to the primary endpoint of OS, additional efficacy outcome measures were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR).
Median PFS was not statistically significant with immunotherapy; it was 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.7-6.2) in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.8-6.2) in the chemotherapy alone group (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94).
The investigator-assessed ORR was 68% in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 58% in the chemotherapy alone group.
The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) in patients with ES-SCLC were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and alopecia, according to the FDA.
At ESMO, Paz-Ares reported that rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were comparable at 30.9% and 36.1% for the durvalumab plus EP group vs. EP alone, respectively; rates of AEs leading to discontinuation were identical in both groups at 9.4%. Unsurprisingly, immune-mediated AEs were higher at 19.6% in the durvalumab combination group vs. 2.6% in the EP alone group.
In this setting, durvalumab is administered prior to chemotherapy on the same day. The recommended durvalumab dose (when administered with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin) is 1,500 mg every 3 weeks prior to chemotherapy and then every 4 weeks as a single-agent maintenance therapy.
Durvalumab is already approved for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer in patients whose tumors have only spread in the chest, and is also approved for use in urothelial cancer.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the immunotherapy durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) in combination with etoposide and either carboplatin or cisplatin as first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).
Durvalumab plus chemotherapy “can be considered a new standard in ES-SCLC,” said Myung-Ju Ahn, MD, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, last year at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) annual meeting, where he discussed results from the phase 3 trial known as CASPIAN.
The new approval is based on efficacy and safety data from that trial, conducted in patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC. In the experimental group (n = 268), durvalumab plus etoposide and a platinum agent (EP) was followed by maintenance durvalumab, and in the control group (n = 269) patients received the EP regimen alone.
Median overall survival (OS) was 13 months in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group compared with 10.3 months in the chemotherapy alone group (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.91; P = .0047).
Reporting these results, trial investigator Luis Paz-Ares, MD, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, put the new survival benefit in the context of standard treatments at the ESMO meeting last year.
“Initial response rates to etoposide plus a platinum are high, but responses are not durable and patients treated with EP typically relapse within 6 months of starting treatment with a median OS of approximately 10 months,” he said.
In addition to the primary endpoint of OS, additional efficacy outcome measures were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR).
Median PFS was not statistically significant with immunotherapy; it was 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.7-6.2) in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.8-6.2) in the chemotherapy alone group (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94).
The investigator-assessed ORR was 68% in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 58% in the chemotherapy alone group.
The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) in patients with ES-SCLC were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and alopecia, according to the FDA.
At ESMO, Paz-Ares reported that rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were comparable at 30.9% and 36.1% for the durvalumab plus EP group vs. EP alone, respectively; rates of AEs leading to discontinuation were identical in both groups at 9.4%. Unsurprisingly, immune-mediated AEs were higher at 19.6% in the durvalumab combination group vs. 2.6% in the EP alone group.
In this setting, durvalumab is administered prior to chemotherapy on the same day. The recommended durvalumab dose (when administered with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin) is 1,500 mg every 3 weeks prior to chemotherapy and then every 4 weeks as a single-agent maintenance therapy.
Durvalumab is already approved for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer in patients whose tumors have only spread in the chest, and is also approved for use in urothelial cancer.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study identifies risk factors for infection after transbronchial biopsy
Among patients who undergo endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial biopsy using a guide sheath (EBUS-GS-TBB) for diagnosing lung cancer, cavitation and low-density areas inside the target lesion on CT and stenosis of the responsible bronchus are risk factors for infection after the procedure, according to a study published in CHEST.
“Infectious complications after [transbronchial biopsy] constitute a serious clinical problem because they might delay the start of treatment or cause the intended treatment to be modified to a milder one,” said Tomohide Souma, MD, of the department of respiratory medicine at Fujita Health University in Toyoake, Japan, and colleagues. “The precise mechanism of such complications is still unclear, and effective prophylaxis procedures have not been established. ... Thus, it is very important to identify the risk factors for infectious complications after TBB if and when these complications are to be avoided.”
To evaluate potential risk factors for infectious complications after EBUS-GS-TBB in a large sample of patients, Dr. Souma and colleagues retrospectively studied the medical records of 1,045 consecutive patients (median age, 72; 68% male) who underwent EBUS-GS-TBB between January 2013 and December 2017 at Fujita Health University Hospital.
In all, 47 patients developed infections, a cumulative incidence of about 4.5%. Infections included pneumonia (51.1%), intratumoral infection (29.8%), and three cases each of lung abscess, pleurisy, and empyema. Three patients, two with empyema and one with lung abscess, died within 1 month before administration of anticancer treatment. “In total, more than 40% of patients with post–EBUS-GS-TBB infection were unable to receive preplanned anticancer treatment,” the researchers said.
On multivariate analysis, cavitation in the lesion (odds ratio, 3.63), low-density areas in the lesion (OR, 13.26), and bronchoscopic findings of responsible bronchus stenosis (OR, 7.82) were significantly associated with development of infections post biopsy.
An analysis that matched 89 patients who received prophylactic antibiotics with controls who did not receive prophylactic antibiotics did not find that prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the likelihood of post–EBUS-GS-TBB infection.
“Notably, three risk factors found in our study indicate that the inflammation-prone status of lesions may be the most important factor for developing post–EBUS-TBB infection,” Dr. Souma and colleagues said. “Although our study does not rebuff the role of antibiotics in postbronchoscopy infection therapy, clinicians should notify patients that post-TBB infection may occur despite the use of prophylactic antibiotics. We recommend that careful and frequent follow-up be applied to patients undergoing diagnostic EBUS-GS-TBB with reference to the risk factors identified in our study.”
A. Christine Argento, MD, FCCP, assistant professor of medicine and thoracic surgery and director of the interventional pulmonary fellowship program at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that this is an important study on a topic that has not been well described in the past.
“This paper ... identifies three factors that were associated with infectious complications – namely, cavitation, low density areas, and a visibly stenosed bronchus leading to the lesion,” she said. “When planning bronchoscopy to sample lesions that fit one of these three criteria, I will likely be more cautious in the future meaning that in these cases, I would limit biopsies to 6-8 pieces which is typically sufficient and I would minimize any trauma to the bronchus leading to the lesion, as if the bronchus is already stenosed on bronchoscopic inspection it is likely inflamed and will only be exacerbated by repeated manipulation and insertions with the bronchoscope and guide sheath leading to a postobstructive phenomenon that was observed in this cohort.
“As far as pleurisy and empyema, it is not described if [the investigators] used fluoroscopy, but this would be an important aspect,” she added. “Ideally, one would not cause disruption of the pleural surface as contamination from the lung to the pleural space can have serious and prolonged infectious consequences as was reported in this study. Fluoroscopy would help the operator to avoid taking samples that would be too close to the pleural surface and could potentially decrease this complication.
“In the United States, it is not always standard practice to see patients 5-7 days following bronchoscopy to assess for complications. Although some of these patients would have presented for evaluation with symptoms, presumably several of these patients would not have. Also pre- and postbronchoscopy labs are not commonly drawn in the United States and so a rise in white blood cells or C-reactive protein would not be known.
“Finally, [the investigators] point out that prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to be effective, and I would agree based on their results. I would only consider using antibiotics as a directed measure if the patient develops infectious complications and the antibiotic choice and duration of therapy would be tailored to the specific complication encountered,” she said.
The researchers had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Souma T et al. CHEST. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.02.025.
Among patients who undergo endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial biopsy using a guide sheath (EBUS-GS-TBB) for diagnosing lung cancer, cavitation and low-density areas inside the target lesion on CT and stenosis of the responsible bronchus are risk factors for infection after the procedure, according to a study published in CHEST.
“Infectious complications after [transbronchial biopsy] constitute a serious clinical problem because they might delay the start of treatment or cause the intended treatment to be modified to a milder one,” said Tomohide Souma, MD, of the department of respiratory medicine at Fujita Health University in Toyoake, Japan, and colleagues. “The precise mechanism of such complications is still unclear, and effective prophylaxis procedures have not been established. ... Thus, it is very important to identify the risk factors for infectious complications after TBB if and when these complications are to be avoided.”
To evaluate potential risk factors for infectious complications after EBUS-GS-TBB in a large sample of patients, Dr. Souma and colleagues retrospectively studied the medical records of 1,045 consecutive patients (median age, 72; 68% male) who underwent EBUS-GS-TBB between January 2013 and December 2017 at Fujita Health University Hospital.
In all, 47 patients developed infections, a cumulative incidence of about 4.5%. Infections included pneumonia (51.1%), intratumoral infection (29.8%), and three cases each of lung abscess, pleurisy, and empyema. Three patients, two with empyema and one with lung abscess, died within 1 month before administration of anticancer treatment. “In total, more than 40% of patients with post–EBUS-GS-TBB infection were unable to receive preplanned anticancer treatment,” the researchers said.
On multivariate analysis, cavitation in the lesion (odds ratio, 3.63), low-density areas in the lesion (OR, 13.26), and bronchoscopic findings of responsible bronchus stenosis (OR, 7.82) were significantly associated with development of infections post biopsy.
An analysis that matched 89 patients who received prophylactic antibiotics with controls who did not receive prophylactic antibiotics did not find that prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the likelihood of post–EBUS-GS-TBB infection.
“Notably, three risk factors found in our study indicate that the inflammation-prone status of lesions may be the most important factor for developing post–EBUS-TBB infection,” Dr. Souma and colleagues said. “Although our study does not rebuff the role of antibiotics in postbronchoscopy infection therapy, clinicians should notify patients that post-TBB infection may occur despite the use of prophylactic antibiotics. We recommend that careful and frequent follow-up be applied to patients undergoing diagnostic EBUS-GS-TBB with reference to the risk factors identified in our study.”
A. Christine Argento, MD, FCCP, assistant professor of medicine and thoracic surgery and director of the interventional pulmonary fellowship program at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that this is an important study on a topic that has not been well described in the past.
“This paper ... identifies three factors that were associated with infectious complications – namely, cavitation, low density areas, and a visibly stenosed bronchus leading to the lesion,” she said. “When planning bronchoscopy to sample lesions that fit one of these three criteria, I will likely be more cautious in the future meaning that in these cases, I would limit biopsies to 6-8 pieces which is typically sufficient and I would minimize any trauma to the bronchus leading to the lesion, as if the bronchus is already stenosed on bronchoscopic inspection it is likely inflamed and will only be exacerbated by repeated manipulation and insertions with the bronchoscope and guide sheath leading to a postobstructive phenomenon that was observed in this cohort.
“As far as pleurisy and empyema, it is not described if [the investigators] used fluoroscopy, but this would be an important aspect,” she added. “Ideally, one would not cause disruption of the pleural surface as contamination from the lung to the pleural space can have serious and prolonged infectious consequences as was reported in this study. Fluoroscopy would help the operator to avoid taking samples that would be too close to the pleural surface and could potentially decrease this complication.
“In the United States, it is not always standard practice to see patients 5-7 days following bronchoscopy to assess for complications. Although some of these patients would have presented for evaluation with symptoms, presumably several of these patients would not have. Also pre- and postbronchoscopy labs are not commonly drawn in the United States and so a rise in white blood cells or C-reactive protein would not be known.
“Finally, [the investigators] point out that prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to be effective, and I would agree based on their results. I would only consider using antibiotics as a directed measure if the patient develops infectious complications and the antibiotic choice and duration of therapy would be tailored to the specific complication encountered,” she said.
The researchers had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Souma T et al. CHEST. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.02.025.
Among patients who undergo endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial biopsy using a guide sheath (EBUS-GS-TBB) for diagnosing lung cancer, cavitation and low-density areas inside the target lesion on CT and stenosis of the responsible bronchus are risk factors for infection after the procedure, according to a study published in CHEST.
“Infectious complications after [transbronchial biopsy] constitute a serious clinical problem because they might delay the start of treatment or cause the intended treatment to be modified to a milder one,” said Tomohide Souma, MD, of the department of respiratory medicine at Fujita Health University in Toyoake, Japan, and colleagues. “The precise mechanism of such complications is still unclear, and effective prophylaxis procedures have not been established. ... Thus, it is very important to identify the risk factors for infectious complications after TBB if and when these complications are to be avoided.”
To evaluate potential risk factors for infectious complications after EBUS-GS-TBB in a large sample of patients, Dr. Souma and colleagues retrospectively studied the medical records of 1,045 consecutive patients (median age, 72; 68% male) who underwent EBUS-GS-TBB between January 2013 and December 2017 at Fujita Health University Hospital.
In all, 47 patients developed infections, a cumulative incidence of about 4.5%. Infections included pneumonia (51.1%), intratumoral infection (29.8%), and three cases each of lung abscess, pleurisy, and empyema. Three patients, two with empyema and one with lung abscess, died within 1 month before administration of anticancer treatment. “In total, more than 40% of patients with post–EBUS-GS-TBB infection were unable to receive preplanned anticancer treatment,” the researchers said.
On multivariate analysis, cavitation in the lesion (odds ratio, 3.63), low-density areas in the lesion (OR, 13.26), and bronchoscopic findings of responsible bronchus stenosis (OR, 7.82) were significantly associated with development of infections post biopsy.
An analysis that matched 89 patients who received prophylactic antibiotics with controls who did not receive prophylactic antibiotics did not find that prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the likelihood of post–EBUS-GS-TBB infection.
“Notably, three risk factors found in our study indicate that the inflammation-prone status of lesions may be the most important factor for developing post–EBUS-TBB infection,” Dr. Souma and colleagues said. “Although our study does not rebuff the role of antibiotics in postbronchoscopy infection therapy, clinicians should notify patients that post-TBB infection may occur despite the use of prophylactic antibiotics. We recommend that careful and frequent follow-up be applied to patients undergoing diagnostic EBUS-GS-TBB with reference to the risk factors identified in our study.”
A. Christine Argento, MD, FCCP, assistant professor of medicine and thoracic surgery and director of the interventional pulmonary fellowship program at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that this is an important study on a topic that has not been well described in the past.
“This paper ... identifies three factors that were associated with infectious complications – namely, cavitation, low density areas, and a visibly stenosed bronchus leading to the lesion,” she said. “When planning bronchoscopy to sample lesions that fit one of these three criteria, I will likely be more cautious in the future meaning that in these cases, I would limit biopsies to 6-8 pieces which is typically sufficient and I would minimize any trauma to the bronchus leading to the lesion, as if the bronchus is already stenosed on bronchoscopic inspection it is likely inflamed and will only be exacerbated by repeated manipulation and insertions with the bronchoscope and guide sheath leading to a postobstructive phenomenon that was observed in this cohort.
“As far as pleurisy and empyema, it is not described if [the investigators] used fluoroscopy, but this would be an important aspect,” she added. “Ideally, one would not cause disruption of the pleural surface as contamination from the lung to the pleural space can have serious and prolonged infectious consequences as was reported in this study. Fluoroscopy would help the operator to avoid taking samples that would be too close to the pleural surface and could potentially decrease this complication.
“In the United States, it is not always standard practice to see patients 5-7 days following bronchoscopy to assess for complications. Although some of these patients would have presented for evaluation with symptoms, presumably several of these patients would not have. Also pre- and postbronchoscopy labs are not commonly drawn in the United States and so a rise in white blood cells or C-reactive protein would not be known.
“Finally, [the investigators] point out that prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to be effective, and I would agree based on their results. I would only consider using antibiotics as a directed measure if the patient develops infectious complications and the antibiotic choice and duration of therapy would be tailored to the specific complication encountered,” she said.
The researchers had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Souma T et al. CHEST. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.02.025.
FROM CHEST
Guidelines on delaying cancer surgery during COVID-19
Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.
Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.
“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.
“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.
For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.
First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.
Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.
Three Phases of Pandemic
The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:
- Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
- Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
- Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred
Breast Cancer Surgery
The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.
For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.
Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).
In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).
Colorectal Cancer Surgery
Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.
Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.
Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.
All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.
In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.
Thoracic Cancer Surgery
Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:
- Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
- Node positive lung cancer
- Post-induction therapy cancer
- Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
- Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
- Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
- Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
- Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
- Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.
Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.
All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.
Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).
All other cases would be deferred.
Other Cancer Types
Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.
For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”
Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.
Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.
“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.
“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.
For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.
First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.
Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.
Three Phases of Pandemic
The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:
- Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
- Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
- Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred
Breast Cancer Surgery
The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.
For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.
Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).
In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).
Colorectal Cancer Surgery
Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.
Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.
Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.
All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.
In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.
Thoracic Cancer Surgery
Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:
- Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
- Node positive lung cancer
- Post-induction therapy cancer
- Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
- Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
- Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
- Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
- Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
- Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.
Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.
All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.
Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).
All other cases would be deferred.
Other Cancer Types
Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.
For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”
Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer surgeries may need to be delayed as hospitals are forced to allocate resources to a surge of COVID-19 patients, says the American College of Surgeons, as it issues a new set of recommendations in reaction to the crisis.
Most surgeons have already curtailed or have ceased to perform elective operations, the ACS notes, and recommends that surgeons continue to do so in order to preserve the necessary resources for care of critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The new clinical guidance for elective surgical case triage during the pandemic includes recommendations for cancer surgery as well as for procedures that are specific to certain cancer types.
“These triage guidelines and joint recommendations are being issued as we appear to be entering a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic with more hospitals facing a potential push beyond their resources to care for critically ill patients,” commented ACS Executive Director David B. Hoyt, MD, in a statement.
“ACS will continue to monitor the landscape for surgical care but we feel this guidance document provides a good foundation for surgeons to begin enacting these triage recommendations today to help them make the best decisions possible for their patients during COVID-19,” he said.
For cancer surgery, which is often not elective but essential to treatment, ACS has issued general guidance for triaging patients, taking into account the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation.
First, decisions about whether to proceed with elective surgeries must consider the available resources of local facilities. The parties responsible for preparing the facility to manage coronavirus patients should be sharing information at regular intervals about constraints on local resources, especially personal protective equipment (PPE), which is running low in many jurisdictions. For example, if an elective case has a high likelihood of needing postoperative ICU care, it is imperative to balance the risk of delay against the need of availability for patients with COVID-19.
Second, cancer care coordination should use virtual technologies as much as possible, and facilities with tumor boards may find it helpful to locate multidisciplinary experts by virtual means, to assist with decision making and establishing triage criteria.
Three Phases of Pandemic
The ACS has also organized decision making into three phases that reflect the acuity of the local COVID-19 situation:
- Phase I. Semi-Urgent Setting (Preparation Phase) – few COVID-19 patients, hospital resources not exhausted, institution still has ICU ventilator capacity and COVID-19 trajectory not in rapid escalation phase
- Phase II. Urgent Setting – many COVID-19 patients, ICU and ventilator capacity limited, operating room supplies limited
- Phase III. Hospital resources are all routed to COVID-19 patients, no ventilator or ICU capacity, operating room supplies exhausted; patients in whom death is likely within hours if surgery is deferred
Breast Cancer Surgery
The ACS also issued specific guidance for several tumor types, including guidance for breast cancer surgery.
For phase I, surgery should be restricted to patients who are likely to experience compromised survival if it is not performed within next 3 months. This includes patients completing neoadjuvant treatment, those with clinical stage T2 or N1 ERpos/PRpos/HER2-negative tumors, patients with triple negative or HER2-positive tumors, discordant biopsies that are likely to be malignant, and removal of a recurrent lesion.
Phase II would be restricted to patients whose survival is threatened if surgery is not performed within the next few days. These would include incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuating a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).
In Phase III, surgical procedures would be restricted to patients who may not survive if surgery is not performed within a few hours. This includes incision and drainage of breast abscess, evacuation of a hematoma, revision of an ischemic mastectomy flap, and revascularization/revision of an autologous tissue flap (autologous reconstruction should be deferred).
Colorectal Cancer Surgery
Guidance for colorectal cancer surgery is also split into the three phases of the pandemic.
Phase I would include cases needing surgical intervention as soon as feasible, while recognizing that the status of each hospital is likely to evolve over the next week or two. These patients would include those with nearly obstructing colon cancer or rectal cancer; cancers that require frequent transfusions; asymptomatic colon cancers; rectal cancers that do not respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation; malignancies with a risk of local perforation and sepsis; and those with early stage rectal cancers that are not candidates for adjuvant therapy.
Phase II comprises patients needing surgery as soon as feasible, but recognizing that hospital status is likely to progress over the next few days. These cases include patients with a nearly obstructing colon cancer where stenting is not an option; those with nearly obstructing rectal cancer (should be diverted); cancers with high (inpatient) transfusion requirements; and cancers with pending evidence of local perforation and sepsis.
All colorectal procedures typically scheduled as routine should be delayed.
In Phase III, if the status of the facility is likely to progress within hours, the only surgery that should be performed would be for perforated, obstructed, or actively bleeding (inpatient transfusion dependent) cancers or those with sepsis. All other surgeries should be deferred.
Thoracic Cancer Surgery
Thoracic cancer surgery guidelines follow those for breast cancer. Phase I should be restricted to patients whose survival may be impacted if surgery is not performed within next 3 months. These include:
- Cases with solid or predominantly solid (>50%) lung cancer or presumed lung cancer (>2 cm), clinical node negative
- Node positive lung cancer
- Post-induction therapy cancer
- Esophageal cancer T1b or greater
- Chest wall tumors that are potentially aggressive and not manageable by alternative means
- Stenting for obstructing esophageal tumor
- Staging to start treatment (mediastinoscopy, diagnostic VATS for pleural dissemination)
- Symptomatic mediastinal tumors
- Patients who are enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials.
Phase II would permit surgery if survival will be impacted by a delay of a few days. These cases would include nonseptic perforated cancer of esophagus, a tumor-associated infection, and management of surgical complications in a hemodynamically stable patient.
All thoracic procedures considered to be routine/elective would be deferred.
Phase III restricts surgery to patients whose survival will be compromised if they do not undergo surgery within the next few hours. This group would include perforated cancer of esophagus in a septic patient, a patient with a threatened airway, sepsis associated with the cancer, and management of surgical complications in an unstable patient (active bleeding that requires surgery, dehiscence of airway, anastomotic leak with sepsis).
All other cases would be deferred.
Other Cancer Types
Although the ACS doesn’t have specific guidelines for all cancer types, a few are included in their general recommendations for the specialty.
For gynecologic surgeries, ACS lists cancer or suspected cancer as indications where significantly delayed surgery could cause “significant harm.”
Delays, in general, are not recommended for neurosurgery, which would include brain cancers. In pediatrics, most cancer surgery is considered “urgent,” where a delay of days to weeks could prove detrimental to the patient. This would comprise all solid tumors, including the initial biopsy and resection following neoadjuvant therapy.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.