Lung Cancer

Though lobectomy is the long-held standard of care for people with early stage non–small cell lung cancer, a noninferiority study shows little difference in perioperative morbidity and mortality outcomes when sublobar resections are performed instead.

The study, published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, compared results from 697 functionally and physically fit patients with stage I cancer randomized over a 10-year period to lobar resection (n = 357) or sublobar resection (n = 340). Patients were analyzed for morbidity and mortality outcomes at 30 and 90 days post surgery. Nasser K. Altorki, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine–New York Presbyterian Hospital, led the study as a post hoc, exploratory analysis of CALGB/Alliance 140503, a multinational phase 3 trial whose primary outcome – still pending – is disease-free survival associated with the two different surgeries.

Dr. Altorki and his colleagues found 30- and 90-day survival to be comparable between surgery types. At 30 days, six patients in the study had died; four in the lobar resection group and two in the sublobar group (1.1% and 0.6%). At 90 days, 10 patients had died, or 1.4% of the cohort; 6 following lobar resection and 4 following sublobar resection. The between-group difference at 30 days was 0.5% (95% confidence interval, –1.1 to 2.3) and at 90 days remained 0.5% (95% CI, –1.5 to 2.6).

Similar rates of serious (grade 3 or worse) adverse advents were seen between surgery groups at 15% and 14%, respectively, and no differences were seen for cardiac or pulmonary complications. In the study, the type of sublobar approach was left to the surgeon’s discretion, and a majority of the sublobar procedures (59%) were found to comprise wedge resections, with the rest segmentectomies. Dr. Altorki and colleagues noted the high rate of wedge resections as striking, because “conventional wisdom … holds that an anatomical segmentectomy, involving individual ligation of segmental vessels and bronchi and wider parenchymal resection, is oncologically superior to nonanatomical wedge resections.” In their analysis the researchers conceded that a three-arm trial allocating patients to lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection “would have answered more precisely the posited research question,” but said that the sample size needed would have been too large.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Altorki reported a research grant from AstraZeneca unrelated to the study; two more coauthors disclosed funding from pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, and an additional 17 coauthors listed no competing interests.

SOURCE: Altorki NK et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30411-9 .

Though lobectomy is the long-held standard of care for people with early stage non–small cell lung cancer, a noninferiority study shows little difference in perioperative morbidity and mortality outcomes when sublobar resections are performed instead.

The study, published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, compared results from 697 functionally and physically fit patients with stage I cancer randomized over a 10-year period to lobar resection (n = 357) or sublobar resection (n = 340). Patients were analyzed for morbidity and mortality outcomes at 30 and 90 days post surgery. Nasser K. Altorki, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine–New York Presbyterian Hospital, led the study as a post hoc, exploratory analysis of CALGB/Alliance 140503, a multinational phase 3 trial whose primary outcome – still pending – is disease-free survival associated with the two different surgeries.

Dr. Altorki and his colleagues found 30- and 90-day survival to be comparable between surgery types. At 30 days, six patients in the study had died; four in the lobar resection group and two in the sublobar group (1.1% and 0.6%). At 90 days, 10 patients had died, or 1.4% of the cohort; 6 following lobar resection and 4 following sublobar resection. The between-group difference at 30 days was 0.5% (95% confidence interval, –1.1 to 2.3) and at 90 days remained 0.5% (95% CI, –1.5 to 2.6).

Similar rates of serious (grade 3 or worse) adverse advents were seen between surgery groups at 15% and 14%, respectively, and no differences were seen for cardiac or pulmonary complications. In the study, the type of sublobar approach was left to the surgeon’s discretion, and a majority of the sublobar procedures (59%) were found to comprise wedge resections, with the rest segmentectomies. Dr. Altorki and colleagues noted the high rate of wedge resections as striking, because “conventional wisdom … holds that an anatomical segmentectomy, involving individual ligation of segmental vessels and bronchi and wider parenchymal resection, is oncologically superior to nonanatomical wedge resections.” In their analysis the researchers conceded that a three-arm trial allocating patients to lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection “would have answered more precisely the posited research question,” but said that the sample size needed would have been too large.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Altorki reported a research grant from AstraZeneca unrelated to the study; two more coauthors disclosed funding from pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, and an additional 17 coauthors listed no competing interests.

SOURCE: Altorki NK et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30411-9 .

Though lobectomy is the long-held standard of care for people with early stage non–small cell lung cancer, a noninferiority study shows little difference in perioperative morbidity and mortality outcomes when sublobar resections are performed instead.

The study, published online in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, compared results from 697 functionally and physically fit patients with stage I cancer randomized over a 10-year period to lobar resection (n = 357) or sublobar resection (n = 340). Patients were analyzed for morbidity and mortality outcomes at 30 and 90 days post surgery. Nasser K. Altorki, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine–New York Presbyterian Hospital, led the study as a post hoc, exploratory analysis of CALGB/Alliance 140503, a multinational phase 3 trial whose primary outcome – still pending – is disease-free survival associated with the two different surgeries.

Dr. Altorki and his colleagues found 30- and 90-day survival to be comparable between surgery types. At 30 days, six patients in the study had died; four in the lobar resection group and two in the sublobar group (1.1% and 0.6%). At 90 days, 10 patients had died, or 1.4% of the cohort; 6 following lobar resection and 4 following sublobar resection. The between-group difference at 30 days was 0.5% (95% confidence interval, –1.1 to 2.3) and at 90 days remained 0.5% (95% CI, –1.5 to 2.6).

Similar rates of serious (grade 3 or worse) adverse advents were seen between surgery groups at 15% and 14%, respectively, and no differences were seen for cardiac or pulmonary complications. In the study, the type of sublobar approach was left to the surgeon’s discretion, and a majority of the sublobar procedures (59%) were found to comprise wedge resections, with the rest segmentectomies. Dr. Altorki and colleagues noted the high rate of wedge resections as striking, because “conventional wisdom … holds that an anatomical segmentectomy, involving individual ligation of segmental vessels and bronchi and wider parenchymal resection, is oncologically superior to nonanatomical wedge resections.” In their analysis the researchers conceded that a three-arm trial allocating patients to lobectomy, segmentectomy, or wedge resection “would have answered more precisely the posited research question,” but said that the sample size needed would have been too large.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Altorki reported a research grant from AstraZeneca unrelated to the study; two more coauthors disclosed funding from pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, and an additional 17 coauthors listed no competing interests.

SOURCE: Altorki NK et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30411-9 .

The Food and Drug Administration has approved atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSq NSCLC) with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.

Approval was based on greater overall survival (OS) among patients receiving the four drug combination, compared with patients who did not receive the checkpoint inhibitor but received the other three drugs in the randomized IMpower150 trial.

For the trial, 1,202 patients with metastatic NSq NSCLC were randomized to three arms for first-line treatment:

• atezolizumab, carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (4-drug regimen);

• atezolizumab, carboplatin and paclitaxel (3-drug regimen); or

• carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (control arm).

Among patients with NSq NSCLC without an EGFR or ALK mutation (87%), the estimated median OS was 19.2 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 14.7 months for those in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64, 0.96; P = .016), the FDA said in a press statement announcing the approval.

The median progression-free survival was 8.5 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 7.0 months for those in the control arm (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.59, 0.85; P = .0002). The overall response rates were 55% in the 4-drug arm and 42% in the control arm. There were no significant differences in OS or final progression-free survival between the 3-drug arm containing atezolizumab and the control arm.

The most common adverse reactions with atezolizumab were fatigue/asthenia, alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, decreased appetite, arthralgia, hypertension, and neuropathy. Treatment with atezolizumab was discontinued in 15% of patients due to adverse reactions, the most common reason being pneumonitis.

The recommended atezolizumab dose is 1,200 mg intravenously over 60 minutes every 3 weeks, the FDA said.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSq NSCLC) with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.

Approval was based on greater overall survival (OS) among patients receiving the four drug combination, compared with patients who did not receive the checkpoint inhibitor but received the other three drugs in the randomized IMpower150 trial.

For the trial, 1,202 patients with metastatic NSq NSCLC were randomized to three arms for first-line treatment:

• atezolizumab, carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (4-drug regimen);

• atezolizumab, carboplatin and paclitaxel (3-drug regimen); or

• carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (control arm).

Among patients with NSq NSCLC without an EGFR or ALK mutation (87%), the estimated median OS was 19.2 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 14.7 months for those in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64, 0.96; P = .016), the FDA said in a press statement announcing the approval.

The median progression-free survival was 8.5 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 7.0 months for those in the control arm (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.59, 0.85; P = .0002). The overall response rates were 55% in the 4-drug arm and 42% in the control arm. There were no significant differences in OS or final progression-free survival between the 3-drug arm containing atezolizumab and the control arm.

The most common adverse reactions with atezolizumab were fatigue/asthenia, alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, decreased appetite, arthralgia, hypertension, and neuropathy. Treatment with atezolizumab was discontinued in 15% of patients due to adverse reactions, the most common reason being pneumonitis.

The recommended atezolizumab dose is 1,200 mg intravenously over 60 minutes every 3 weeks, the FDA said.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSq NSCLC) with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations.

Approval was based on greater overall survival (OS) among patients receiving the four drug combination, compared with patients who did not receive the checkpoint inhibitor but received the other three drugs in the randomized IMpower150 trial.

For the trial, 1,202 patients with metastatic NSq NSCLC were randomized to three arms for first-line treatment:

• atezolizumab, carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (4-drug regimen);

• atezolizumab, carboplatin and paclitaxel (3-drug regimen); or

• carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (control arm).

Among patients with NSq NSCLC without an EGFR or ALK mutation (87%), the estimated median OS was 19.2 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 14.7 months for those in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64, 0.96; P = .016), the FDA said in a press statement announcing the approval.

The median progression-free survival was 8.5 months for patients receiving the 4-drug regimen and 7.0 months for those in the control arm (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.59, 0.85; P = .0002). The overall response rates were 55% in the 4-drug arm and 42% in the control arm. There were no significant differences in OS or final progression-free survival between the 3-drug arm containing atezolizumab and the control arm.

The most common adverse reactions with atezolizumab were fatigue/asthenia, alopecia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, decreased appetite, arthralgia, hypertension, and neuropathy. Treatment with atezolizumab was discontinued in 15% of patients due to adverse reactions, the most common reason being pneumonitis.

The recommended atezolizumab dose is 1,200 mg intravenously over 60 minutes every 3 weeks, the FDA said.

Biosimilars for three widely used oncology drugs showed efficacy and safety in lung cancer and breast cancer similar to those of the reference products, according to findings reported at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Oncology biosimilars for bevacizumab (Avastin), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and filgrastim (Neupogen and others) have yielded positive results in various patient populations and clinical settings, investigators reported at the annual ASCO meeting. The findings advance the promise of new agents that have no clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety when compared with their reference drugs but have substantially lower cost.

“Biosimilars are here,” said Michael A Thompson, MD, PhD, of Aurora Health Care in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, “[although] issues remain, including clinical decision support and pathway adoption, naming differences across the world, competition and lower prices versus the illusion of a free market, and adoption to decrease costs and increase value to our patients.” Dr Thompson was commenting during an invited discussion at the meeting. He is the medical director of the Early Phase Cancer Research Program and the Oncology Precision Medicine Program at Aurora Health (also see Commentary at end of article).

Bevacizumab biosimilar

The REFLECTIONS trial (NCT02364999) was a multinational, first-line, randomized, controlled trial among 719 patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients were randomized to paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab (sourced from the European Union) or the candidate bevacizumab biosimilar PF-06439535 on a double-blind basis, followed by monotherapy with the same assigned agent.

The overall response rate by week 19, confirmed by week 25 – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 45.3% with the biosimilar and 44.6% with bevacizumab, reported lead author Mark A Socinski, MD, executive medical director of the Florida Hospital Cancer Institute in Orlando. The confidence interval (CI) for the risk difference fell within the equivalence margins set by European Union regulators (-13% and +13% for the 95% CI). And the confidence interval for the risk ratio fell within the equivalence margins set by the US Food and Drug Administration (0.73 and 1.37 for the 90% CI) and Japanese regulators (0.729 and 1.371 for the 95% CI).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months with the biosimilar and 7.7 months with bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.974; P = .814), and corresponding 1-year rates were 30.8% and 29.3%, respectively, Dr Socinski reported. Median overall survival was 18.4 months and 17.8 months (HR, 1.001; P = .991), and corresponding 1-year rates were 66.4% and 68.8%.

Rates of grade 3 or higher hypertension, cardiac disorders, and bleeding did not differ significantly with the 2 agents. Patients also had similar rates of grade 3 or higher serious adverse events (AEs) and of fatal (grade 5) serious AEs with the biosimilar and bevacizumab (5.3% and 5.9%, respectively).

“Similarity between PF-06439535 and bevacizumab-EU was demonstrated for the primary efficacy endpoint of overall response rate. ... There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety profile shown in this trial, and similar pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity results were seen across treatment groups,” Dr Socinski summarized. “These results confirm the similarity demonstrated in earlier analytical, nonclinical, and clinical studies of PF-06439535 with bevacizumab-EU.”

Funding Pfizer sponsored the REFLECTIONS trial. Disclosures Dr Socinski disclosed that his institution receives research funding from Pfizer. Source Socinski MA et al. A comparative clinical study of PF-06439535, a candidate bevacizumab biosimilar, and reference bevacizumab, in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. ASCO 2018, Abstract 109. https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/161702/abstract. Clinical trial registry number NCT02364999 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02364999

Trastuzumab biosimilar

The phase 3 HERITAGE trial was a first-line, randomized, controlled trial that compared biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) with trastuzumab in combination with taxane chemotherapy and then as maintenance monotherapy in 458 patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer. The 24-week results, previously reported (JAMA. 2017 Jan 3;317[1]:37-47), showed a similar overall response rate with each agent when combined with chemotherapy. Rates of various AEs were essentially the same.

The 48-week results showed a median PFS of 11.1 months with trastuzumab-dkst and 11.1 months with trastuzumab (HR, 0.95; P = .842), reported senior investigator Hope S Rugo, MD, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. “The overall survival is immature but is impressive at over 80% at 52 weeks,” she noted.

Presence of overall response at 24 weeks correlated with duration of PFS at 48 weeks (biserial r = .752). “Additional patients achieved a response during the monotherapy portion of the treatment, which is intriguing and clearly emphasizes the importance of monotherapy, as well as the importance of having alternate agents at lower cost available,” Dr Rugo commented.

Common AEs through week 48 were much the same as those seen at week 24, with few additional [events] occurring during monotherapy. “No new safety issues were observed, and in fact, toxicity during monotherapy was quite minor,” she noted. “One thing that’s interesting here is that there was more arthralgia during the first 24 weeks with trastuzumab-dkst than with trastuzumab, but in monotherapy, this fell to a very low number and was identical between the 2 arms. Paclitaxel, which people stayed on for longer [with the biosimilar], may have been the cause of this.”

The 48-week rates of AEs of special interest – respiratory events, cardiac disorders, and infusion-related AEs – and of serious AEs were similar for the 2 agents.

“We didn’t see any additional serious cardiac events during monotherapy,” Dr Rugo noted. Mean and median left ventricular ejection fraction over 48 weeks were similar, as was the rate of LVEF, which dropped below 50% (4.0% with trastuzumab-dkst and 3.3% with trastuzumab). The incidences of antidrug antibody and neutralizing antibody were also comparably low in both groups.

“HERITAGE data, now at week 48, supports trastuzumab-dkst as a biosimilar to trastuzumab in all approved indications,” Dr Rugo said. “Final overall survival will be assessed after 36 months or after 240 deaths, whichever occurs first. Based on current data, this is predicted to conclude by the end of 2018, with final overall survival data available next year.”

Dr Rugo emphasized that trastuzumab-dkst provides “an additional high-quality treatment option for patients with HER2+ breast cancers in any setting. This study shows that biosimilars offer the potential for worldwide cost savings and improved access to life-saving therapies. It’s sobering to think that the patients enrolled in this study would not otherwise have had access to continued trastuzumab therapy, and so many of them are still alive with longer follow-up.”

Funding Mylan sponsored the HERITAGE trial. Disclosures Dr Rugo disclosed that she receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Mylan. Source Manikhas A et al. Biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst monotherapy versus trastuzumab monotherapy after combination therapy: Toxicity, efficacy, and immunogenicity from the phase 3 Heritage trial. ASCO 2018, Abstract 110. https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/161572/abstract. Clinical trial registry number NCT02472964 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02472964
 

Filgrastim biosimilar

Investigators led by Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, head of the Breast Center and chair for Conservative Oncology in the department of OB&GYN at the University of Munich (Germany), compared efficacy of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), a biosimilar of filgrastim (recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, or G-CSF), in a trial population with that of a real-world population of women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Data for the former came from PIONEER, a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial among patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer undergoing docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (Ann Oncol. 2015;26[9]:1948-53). Data for the latter came from MONITOR-GCSF, a postmarketing, open-label, observational cohort study among patients from 12 European countries receiving chemotherapy for various solid and hematologic malignancies (Support Care Cancer. 2016;24[2]:911-25).

Dr Harbeck and her colleagues compared 217 women who had nonmetastatic breast cancer from the trial with 466 women who had any-stage breast cancer (42% metastatic) from the real-world cohort.

Results showed that the 6.2% rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in any cycle seen in the real-world population was much the same as the 5.1% rate seen previously in the trial/biosimilar population. Findings were similar for temperature exceeding 38.5°C in any cycle: 3.4% and 5.6%, respectively. The real-world population had a lower rate of severe neutropenia than did the trial population (19.5% and 74.3%) and higher rates of infection (15.5% and 7.9%) and hospitalization caused by febrile neutropenia (3.9% and 1.8%). Findings were essentially the same in cycle-level analyses.

The real-world cohort had many fewer any-severity safety events of special interest than did the trial cohort, such as musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders (20 and 261 events, respectively) and skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders (5 and 258 events). “Seeing these data, you have to keep in mind that the patients received totally different chemotherapy. TAC chemotherapy has a lot of chemotherapy-associated side effects,” Dr Harbeck noted. “The other thing is that MONITOR was a real-world database, and one could assume that there is some underreporting of events that are not directly correlated to the events that are of particular interest.”

Additional results available only from the trial showed that no patients developed binding or neutralizing antibodies against G-CSF.

“From a clinician’s point of view, it is very reassuring that we did not see any other safety signals in the real-world data than we saw in the randomized controlled trial and the efficacy was very, very similar,” Dr Harbeck commented. “Having seen the discrepancies in the data, I think it’s important to have randomized controlled trials to assess and monitor AEs for registration purposes and real-world evidence to reflect the daily clinical routine,” she concluded.
 

Funding Sandoz sponsored the PIONEER and MONITOR-GCSF trials. Disclosures Dr Harbeck disclosed that she has a consulting or advisory role with Sandoz. Source Harbeck N et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim in a RCT (PIONEER) and real-world practice (MONITOR-GCSF). ASCO 2018, Abstract 111. https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/161688/abstract. Clinical trial registry number NCT01519700 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01519700

Biosimilars for three widely used oncology drugs showed efficacy and safety in lung cancer and breast cancer similar to those of the reference products, according to findings reported at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Oncology biosimilars for bevacizumab (Avastin), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and filgrastim (Neupogen and others) have yielded positive results in various patient populations and clinical settings, investigators reported at the annual ASCO meeting. The findings advance the promise of new agents that have no clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety when compared with their reference drugs but have substantially lower cost.

“Biosimilars are here,” said Michael A Thompson, MD, PhD, of Aurora Health Care in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, “[although] issues remain, including clinical decision support and pathway adoption, naming differences across the world, competition and lower prices versus the illusion of a free market, and adoption to decrease costs and increase value to our patients.” Dr Thompson was commenting during an invited discussion at the meeting. He is the medical director of the Early Phase Cancer Research Program and the Oncology Precision Medicine Program at Aurora Health (also see Commentary at end of article).

Bevacizumab biosimilar

The REFLECTIONS trial (NCT02364999) was a multinational, first-line, randomized, controlled trial among 719 patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients were randomized to paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab (sourced from the European Union) or the candidate bevacizumab biosimilar PF-06439535 on a double-blind basis, followed by monotherapy with the same assigned agent.

The overall response rate by week 19, confirmed by week 25 – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 45.3% with the biosimilar and 44.6% with bevacizumab, reported lead author Mark A Socinski, MD, executive medical director of the Florida Hospital Cancer Institute in Orlando. The confidence interval (CI) for the risk difference fell within the equivalence margins set by European Union regulators (-13% and +13% for the 95% CI). And the confidence interval for the risk ratio fell within the equivalence margins set by the US Food and Drug Administration (0.73 and 1.37 for the 90% CI) and Japanese regulators (0.729 and 1.371 for the 95% CI).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months with the biosimilar and 7.7 months with bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.974; P = .814), and corresponding 1-year rates were 30.8% and 29.3%, respectively, Dr Socinski reported. Median overall survival was 18.4 months and 17.8 months (HR, 1.001; P = .991), and corresponding 1-year rates were 66.4% and 68.8%.

Rates of grade 3 or higher hypertension, cardiac disorders, and bleeding did not differ significantly with the 2 agents. Patients also had similar rates of grade 3 or higher serious adverse events (AEs) and of fatal (grade 5) serious AEs with the biosimilar and bevacizumab (5.3% and 5.9%, respectively).

“Similarity between PF-06439535 and bevacizumab-EU was demonstrated for the primary efficacy endpoint of overall response rate. ... There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety profile shown in this trial, and similar pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity results were seen across treatment groups,” Dr Socinski summarized. “These results confirm the similarity demonstrated in earlier analytical, nonclinical, and clinical studies of PF-06439535 with bevacizumab-EU.”

Funding Pfizer sponsored the REFLECTIONS trial. Disclosures Dr Socinski disclosed that his institution receives research funding from Pfizer. Source Socinski MA et al. A comparative clinical study of PF-06439535, a candidate bevacizumab biosimilar, and reference bevacizumab, in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. ASCO 2018, Abstract 109. https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/161702/abstract. Clinical trial registry number NCT02364999 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02364999

Trastuzumab biosimilar

The phase 3 HERITAGE trial was a first-line, randomized, controlled trial that compared biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) with trastuzumab in combination with taxane chemotherapy and then as maintenance monotherapy in 458 patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer. The 24-week results, previously reported (JAMA. 2017 Jan 3;317[1]:37-47), showed a similar overall response rate with each agent when combined with chemotherapy. Rates of various AEs were essentially the same.

The 48-week results showed a median PFS of 11.1 months with trastuzumab-dkst and 11.1 months with trastuzumab (HR, 0.95; P = .842), reported senior investigator Hope S Rugo, MD, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. “The overall survival is immature but is impressive at over 80% at 52 weeks,” she noted.

Presence of overall response at 24 weeks correlated with duration of PFS at 48 weeks (biserial r = .752). “Additional patients achieved a response during the monotherapy portion of the treatment, which is intriguing and clearly emphasizes the importance of monotherapy, as well as the importance of having alternate agents at lower cost available,” Dr Rugo commented.

Common AEs through week 48 were much the same as those seen at week 24, with few additional [events] occurring during monotherapy. “No new safety issues were observed, and in fact, toxicity during monotherapy was quite minor,” she noted. “One thing that’s interesting here is that there was more arthralgia during the first 24 weeks with trastuzumab-dkst than with trastuzumab, but in monotherapy, this fell to a very low number and was identical between the 2 arms. Paclitaxel, which people stayed on for longer [with the biosimilar], may have been the cause of this.”

The 48-week rates of AEs of special interest – respiratory events, cardiac disorders, and infusion-related AEs – and of serious AEs were similar for the 2 agents.

“We didn’t see any additional serious cardiac events during monotherapy,” Dr Rugo noted. Mean and median left ventricular ejection fraction over 48 weeks were similar, as was the rate of LVEF, which dropped below 50% (4.0% with trastuzumab-dkst and 3.3% with trastuzumab). The incidences of antidrug antibody and neutralizing antibody were also comparably low in both groups.

“HERITAGE data, now at week 48, supports trastuzumab-dkst as a biosimilar to trastuzumab in all approved indications,” Dr Rugo said. “Final overall survival will be assessed after 36 months or after 240 deaths, whichever occurs first. Based on current data, this is predicted to conclude by the end of 2018, with final overall survival data available next year.”

Dr Rugo emphasized that trastuzumab-dkst provides “an additional high-quality treatment option for patients with HER2+ breast cancers in any setting. This study shows that biosimilars offer the potential for worldwide cost savings and improved access to life-saving therapies. It’s sobering to think that the patients enrolled in this study would not otherwise have had access to continued trastuzumab therapy, and so many of them are still alive with longer follow-up.”

Funding Mylan sponsored the HERITAGE trial. Disclosures Dr Rugo disclosed that she receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Mylan. Source Manikhas A et al. Biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst monotherapy versus trastuzumab monotherapy after combination therapy: Toxicity, efficacy, and immunogenicity from the phase 3 Heritage trial. ASCO 2018, Abstract 110. https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/161572/abstract. Clinical trial registry number NCT02472964 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02472964
 

Filgrastim biosimilar

Investigators led by Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, head of the Breast Center and chair for Conservative Oncology in the department of OB&GYN at the University of Munich (Germany), compared efficacy of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), a biosimilar of filgrastim (recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, or G-CSF), in a trial population with that of a real-world population of women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Data for the former came from PIONEER, a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial among patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer undergoing docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (Ann Oncol. 2015;26[9]:1948-53). Data for the latter came from MONITOR-GCSF, a postmarketing, open-label, observational cohort study among patients from 12 European countries receiving chemotherapy for various solid and hematologic malignancies (Support Care Cancer. 2016;24[2]:911-25).

Dr Harbeck and her colleagues compared 217 women who had nonmetastatic breast cancer from the trial with 466 women who had any-stage breast cancer (42% metastatic) from the real-world cohort.

Results showed that the 6.2% rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in any cycle seen in the real-world population was much the same as the 5.1% rate seen previously in the trial/biosimilar population. Findings were similar for temperature exceeding 38.5°C in any cycle: 3.4% and 5.6%, respectively. The real-world population had a lower rate of severe neutropenia than did the trial population (19.5% and 74.3%) and higher rates of infection (15.5% and 7.9%) and hospitalization caused by febrile neutropenia (3.9% and 1.8%). Findings were essentially the same in cycle-level analyses.

The real-world cohort had many fewer any-severity safety events of special interest than did the trial cohort, such as musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders (20 and 261 events, respectively) and skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders (5 and 258 events). “Seeing these data, you have to keep in mind that the patients received totally different chemotherapy. TAC chemotherapy has a lot of chemotherapy-associated side effects,” Dr Harbeck noted. “The other thing is that MONITOR was a real-world database, and one could assume that there is some underreporting of events that are not directly correlated to the events that are of particular interest.”

Additional results available only from the trial showed that no patients developed binding or neutralizing antibodies against G-CSF.

“From a clinician’s point of view, it is very reassuring that we did not see any other safety signals in the real-world data than we saw in the randomized controlled trial and the efficacy was very, very similar,” Dr Harbeck commented. “Having seen the discrepancies in the data, I think it’s important to have randomized controlled trials to assess and monitor AEs for registration purposes and real-world evidence to reflect the daily clinical routine,” she concluded.
 

Funding Sandoz sponsored the PIONEER and MONITOR-GCSF trials. Disclosures Dr Harbeck disclosed that she has a consulting or advisory role with Sandoz. Source Harbeck N et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim in a RCT (PIONEER) and real-world practice (MONITOR-GCSF). ASCO 2018, Abstract 111. https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/161688/abstract. Clinical trial registry number NCT01519700 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01519700

Biosimilars for three widely used oncology drugs showed efficacy and safety in lung cancer and breast cancer similar to those of the reference products, according to findings reported at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Oncology biosimilars for bevacizumab (Avastin), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and filgrastim (Neupogen and others) have yielded positive results in various patient populations and clinical settings, investigators reported at the annual ASCO meeting. The findings advance the promise of new agents that have no clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety when compared with their reference drugs but have substantially lower cost.

“Biosimilars are here,” said Michael A Thompson, MD, PhD, of Aurora Health Care in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, “[although] issues remain, including clinical decision support and pathway adoption, naming differences across the world, competition and lower prices versus the illusion of a free market, and adoption to decrease costs and increase value to our patients.” Dr Thompson was commenting during an invited discussion at the meeting. He is the medical director of the Early Phase Cancer Research Program and the Oncology Precision Medicine Program at Aurora Health (also see Commentary at end of article).

Bevacizumab biosimilar

The REFLECTIONS trial (NCT02364999) was a multinational, first-line, randomized, controlled trial among 719 patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients were randomized to paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab (sourced from the European Union) or the candidate bevacizumab biosimilar PF-06439535 on a double-blind basis, followed by monotherapy with the same assigned agent.

The overall response rate by week 19, confirmed by week 25 – the trial’s primary endpoint – was 45.3% with the biosimilar and 44.6% with bevacizumab, reported lead author Mark A Socinski, MD, executive medical director of the Florida Hospital Cancer Institute in Orlando. The confidence interval (CI) for the risk difference fell within the equivalence margins set by European Union regulators (-13% and +13% for the 95% CI). And the confidence interval for the risk ratio fell within the equivalence margins set by the US Food and Drug Administration (0.73 and 1.37 for the 90% CI) and Japanese regulators (0.729 and 1.371 for the 95% CI).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months with the biosimilar and 7.7 months with bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.974; P = .814), and corresponding 1-year rates were 30.8% and 29.3%, respectively, Dr Socinski reported. Median overall survival was 18.4 months and 17.8 months (HR, 1.001; P = .991), and corresponding 1-year rates were 66.4% and 68.8%.

Rates of grade 3 or higher hypertension, cardiac disorders, and bleeding did not differ significantly with the 2 agents. Patients also had similar rates of grade 3 or higher serious adverse events (AEs) and of fatal (grade 5) serious AEs with the biosimilar and bevacizumab (5.3% and 5.9%, respectively).

“Similarity between PF-06439535 and bevacizumab-EU was demonstrated for the primary efficacy endpoint of overall response rate. ... There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety profile shown in this trial, and similar pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity results were seen across treatment groups,” Dr Socinski summarized. “These results confirm the similarity demonstrated in earlier analytical, nonclinical, and clinical studies of PF-06439535 with bevacizumab-EU.”

Funding Pfizer sponsored the REFLECTIONS trial. Disclosures Dr Socinski disclosed that his institution receives research funding from Pfizer. Source Socinski MA et al. A comparative clinical study of PF-06439535, a candidate bevacizumab biosimilar, and reference bevacizumab, in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. ASCO 2018, Abstract 109. https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/161702/abstract. Clinical trial registry number NCT02364999 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02364999

Trastuzumab biosimilar

The phase 3 HERITAGE trial was a first-line, randomized, controlled trial that compared biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) with trastuzumab in combination with taxane chemotherapy and then as maintenance monotherapy in 458 patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer. The 24-week results, previously reported (JAMA. 2017 Jan 3;317[1]:37-47), showed a similar overall response rate with each agent when combined with chemotherapy. Rates of various AEs were essentially the same.

The 48-week results showed a median PFS of 11.1 months with trastuzumab-dkst and 11.1 months with trastuzumab (HR, 0.95; P = .842), reported senior investigator Hope S Rugo, MD, a clinical professor of medicine and director of the Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. “The overall survival is immature but is impressive at over 80% at 52 weeks,” she noted.

Presence of overall response at 24 weeks correlated with duration of PFS at 48 weeks (biserial r = .752). “Additional patients achieved a response during the monotherapy portion of the treatment, which is intriguing and clearly emphasizes the importance of monotherapy, as well as the importance of having alternate agents at lower cost available,” Dr Rugo commented.

Common AEs through week 48 were much the same as those seen at week 24, with few additional [events] occurring during monotherapy. “No new safety issues were observed, and in fact, toxicity during monotherapy was quite minor,” she noted. “One thing that’s interesting here is that there was more arthralgia during the first 24 weeks with trastuzumab-dkst than with trastuzumab, but in monotherapy, this fell to a very low number and was identical between the 2 arms. Paclitaxel, which people stayed on for longer [with the biosimilar], may have been the cause of this.”

The 48-week rates of AEs of special interest – respiratory events, cardiac disorders, and infusion-related AEs – and of serious AEs were similar for the 2 agents.

“We didn’t see any additional serious cardiac events during monotherapy,” Dr Rugo noted. Mean and median left ventricular ejection fraction over 48 weeks were similar, as was the rate of LVEF, which dropped below 50% (4.0% with trastuzumab-dkst and 3.3% with trastuzumab). The incidences of antidrug antibody and neutralizing antibody were also comparably low in both groups.

“HERITAGE data, now at week 48, supports trastuzumab-dkst as a biosimilar to trastuzumab in all approved indications,” Dr Rugo said. “Final overall survival will be assessed after 36 months or after 240 deaths, whichever occurs first. Based on current data, this is predicted to conclude by the end of 2018, with final overall survival data available next year.”

Dr Rugo emphasized that trastuzumab-dkst provides “an additional high-quality treatment option for patients with HER2+ breast cancers in any setting. This study shows that biosimilars offer the potential for worldwide cost savings and improved access to life-saving therapies. It’s sobering to think that the patients enrolled in this study would not otherwise have had access to continued trastuzumab therapy, and so many of them are still alive with longer follow-up.”

Funding Mylan sponsored the HERITAGE trial. Disclosures Dr Rugo disclosed that she receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Mylan. Source Manikhas A et al. Biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst monotherapy versus trastuzumab monotherapy after combination therapy: Toxicity, efficacy, and immunogenicity from the phase 3 Heritage trial. ASCO 2018, Abstract 110. https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/161572/abstract. Clinical trial registry number NCT02472964 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02472964
 

Filgrastim biosimilar

Investigators led by Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, head of the Breast Center and chair for Conservative Oncology in the department of OB&GYN at the University of Munich (Germany), compared efficacy of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), a biosimilar of filgrastim (recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, or G-CSF), in a trial population with that of a real-world population of women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Data for the former came from PIONEER, a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial among patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer undergoing docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (Ann Oncol. 2015;26[9]:1948-53). Data for the latter came from MONITOR-GCSF, a postmarketing, open-label, observational cohort study among patients from 12 European countries receiving chemotherapy for various solid and hematologic malignancies (Support Care Cancer. 2016;24[2]:911-25).

Dr Harbeck and her colleagues compared 217 women who had nonmetastatic breast cancer from the trial with 466 women who had any-stage breast cancer (42% metastatic) from the real-world cohort.

Results showed that the 6.2% rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in any cycle seen in the real-world population was much the same as the 5.1% rate seen previously in the trial/biosimilar population. Findings were similar for temperature exceeding 38.5°C in any cycle: 3.4% and 5.6%, respectively. The real-world population had a lower rate of severe neutropenia than did the trial population (19.5% and 74.3%) and higher rates of infection (15.5% and 7.9%) and hospitalization caused by febrile neutropenia (3.9% and 1.8%). Findings were essentially the same in cycle-level analyses.

The real-world cohort had many fewer any-severity safety events of special interest than did the trial cohort, such as musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders (20 and 261 events, respectively) and skin/subcutaneous tissue disorders (5 and 258 events). “Seeing these data, you have to keep in mind that the patients received totally different chemotherapy. TAC chemotherapy has a lot of chemotherapy-associated side effects,” Dr Harbeck noted. “The other thing is that MONITOR was a real-world database, and one could assume that there is some underreporting of events that are not directly correlated to the events that are of particular interest.”

Additional results available only from the trial showed that no patients developed binding or neutralizing antibodies against G-CSF.

“From a clinician’s point of view, it is very reassuring that we did not see any other safety signals in the real-world data than we saw in the randomized controlled trial and the efficacy was very, very similar,” Dr Harbeck commented. “Having seen the discrepancies in the data, I think it’s important to have randomized controlled trials to assess and monitor AEs for registration purposes and real-world evidence to reflect the daily clinical routine,” she concluded.
 

Funding Sandoz sponsored the PIONEER and MONITOR-GCSF trials. Disclosures Dr Harbeck disclosed that she has a consulting or advisory role with Sandoz. Source Harbeck N et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim in a RCT (PIONEER) and real-world practice (MONITOR-GCSF). ASCO 2018, Abstract 111. https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/161688/abstract. Clinical trial registry number NCT01519700 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01519700

The US Food and Drug Administration awarded regulatory approval this spring to the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor osimertinib for the treatment of patients with exon 19 deletion- or exon21 L858R mutation-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated for advanced disease.

Osimertinib is designed to target both sensitizing and resistant mutant forms of EGFR, but not the wildtype protein, in an effort to improve safety and efficacy compared with other standard of care (SoC) EGFR inhibitors. It was previously approved in the second-line setting in NSCLC following failure of prior EGFR inhibitor therapy in 2015. The current approval represents a paradigm shift in the front-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, reinforcing the role of osimertinib, which has been recommended in this setting by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines in Oncology for more than a year.

Approval was based on the phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled FLAURA trial. A total of 556 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive an oral daily dose of 80 mg osimertinib or gefitinib 250 mg or erlotinib 150 mg. The trial was conducted during December 2014 through March 2016 at 132 sites in 29 countries.

Eligible patients were aged 18 or over and had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, had not previously received treatment for advanced disease, were eligible for first-line treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib, had locally or centrally confirmed EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations alone or concurrently with other EGFR mutations, and a World Health Organization Performance Status of 0 (fully active, able to carry on all predisease performance without restriction) or 1 (restricted in strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out light work), and a minimum life expectancy of 12 weeks.

Patients with central nervous system metastases were eligible if their condition was neurologically stable. Patients who had previous definitive treatment or glucocorticoid therapy had to have completed it at least 2 weeks before the start of the trial. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had any previous treatment with any systemic anticancer therapy for advanced NSCLC, had major surgery within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, had radiation therapy to more than 30% of the bone marrow or a wide field of radiation within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, or were currently receiving potent inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 3A4.

Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression or death by more than 50% compared with standard TKI therapy. The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months with osimertinib, compared with 10.2 months for erlotinib or gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46; P < .0001). PFS benefit extended across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with CNS metastases (median PFS: 15.2 months vs 9.6 months; HR: 0.47; P = .0009). Confirmed overall response rate was 77% and 69% in the study and SoC groups, respectively, and estimated duration of response (DoR) was 17.6 months and 9.6 months. At the time of analysis, there were too few deaths to compare overall survival.

The most common adverse events (AEs) experienced by patients treated with osimertinib were diarrhea, rash, dry skin, nail toxicity, stomatitis, and reduced appetite. Serious AEs occurred in 4% of patients treated with osimertinib, most commonly involving pneumonia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and pulmonary embolism (PE). The rate of grade 3/4 AEs was 33.7% in the osimertinib group and 44.8% in the SoC group. Patients treated with osimertinib were less likely to discontinue treatment due to AEs (13.3% vs 18.1% of those receiving SoC).

The US Food and Drug Administration awarded regulatory approval this spring to the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor osimertinib for the treatment of patients with exon 19 deletion- or exon21 L858R mutation-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated for advanced disease.

Osimertinib is designed to target both sensitizing and resistant mutant forms of EGFR, but not the wildtype protein, in an effort to improve safety and efficacy compared with other standard of care (SoC) EGFR inhibitors. It was previously approved in the second-line setting in NSCLC following failure of prior EGFR inhibitor therapy in 2015. The current approval represents a paradigm shift in the front-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, reinforcing the role of osimertinib, which has been recommended in this setting by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines in Oncology for more than a year.

Approval was based on the phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled FLAURA trial. A total of 556 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive an oral daily dose of 80 mg osimertinib or gefitinib 250 mg or erlotinib 150 mg. The trial was conducted during December 2014 through March 2016 at 132 sites in 29 countries.

Eligible patients were aged 18 or over and had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, had not previously received treatment for advanced disease, were eligible for first-line treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib, had locally or centrally confirmed EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations alone or concurrently with other EGFR mutations, and a World Health Organization Performance Status of 0 (fully active, able to carry on all predisease performance without restriction) or 1 (restricted in strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out light work), and a minimum life expectancy of 12 weeks.

Patients with central nervous system metastases were eligible if their condition was neurologically stable. Patients who had previous definitive treatment or glucocorticoid therapy had to have completed it at least 2 weeks before the start of the trial. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had any previous treatment with any systemic anticancer therapy for advanced NSCLC, had major surgery within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, had radiation therapy to more than 30% of the bone marrow or a wide field of radiation within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, or were currently receiving potent inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 3A4.

Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression or death by more than 50% compared with standard TKI therapy. The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months with osimertinib, compared with 10.2 months for erlotinib or gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46; P < .0001). PFS benefit extended across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with CNS metastases (median PFS: 15.2 months vs 9.6 months; HR: 0.47; P = .0009). Confirmed overall response rate was 77% and 69% in the study and SoC groups, respectively, and estimated duration of response (DoR) was 17.6 months and 9.6 months. At the time of analysis, there were too few deaths to compare overall survival.

The most common adverse events (AEs) experienced by patients treated with osimertinib were diarrhea, rash, dry skin, nail toxicity, stomatitis, and reduced appetite. Serious AEs occurred in 4% of patients treated with osimertinib, most commonly involving pneumonia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and pulmonary embolism (PE). The rate of grade 3/4 AEs was 33.7% in the osimertinib group and 44.8% in the SoC group. Patients treated with osimertinib were less likely to discontinue treatment due to AEs (13.3% vs 18.1% of those receiving SoC).

The US Food and Drug Administration awarded regulatory approval this spring to the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor osimertinib for the treatment of patients with exon 19 deletion- or exon21 L858R mutation-positive advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated for advanced disease.

Osimertinib is designed to target both sensitizing and resistant mutant forms of EGFR, but not the wildtype protein, in an effort to improve safety and efficacy compared with other standard of care (SoC) EGFR inhibitors. It was previously approved in the second-line setting in NSCLC following failure of prior EGFR inhibitor therapy in 2015. The current approval represents a paradigm shift in the front-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, reinforcing the role of osimertinib, which has been recommended in this setting by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines in Oncology for more than a year.

Approval was based on the phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled FLAURA trial. A total of 556 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive an oral daily dose of 80 mg osimertinib or gefitinib 250 mg or erlotinib 150 mg. The trial was conducted during December 2014 through March 2016 at 132 sites in 29 countries.

Eligible patients were aged 18 or over and had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, had not previously received treatment for advanced disease, were eligible for first-line treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib, had locally or centrally confirmed EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations alone or concurrently with other EGFR mutations, and a World Health Organization Performance Status of 0 (fully active, able to carry on all predisease performance without restriction) or 1 (restricted in strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out light work), and a minimum life expectancy of 12 weeks.

Patients with central nervous system metastases were eligible if their condition was neurologically stable. Patients who had previous definitive treatment or glucocorticoid therapy had to have completed it at least 2 weeks before the start of the trial. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had any previous treatment with any systemic anticancer therapy for advanced NSCLC, had major surgery within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, had radiation therapy to more than 30% of the bone marrow or a wide field of radiation within 4 weeks of the first dose of the study drug, or were currently receiving potent inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 3A4.

Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression or death by more than 50% compared with standard TKI therapy. The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months with osimertinib, compared with 10.2 months for erlotinib or gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.46; P < .0001). PFS benefit extended across all prespecified subgroups, including patients with CNS metastases (median PFS: 15.2 months vs 9.6 months; HR: 0.47; P = .0009). Confirmed overall response rate was 77% and 69% in the study and SoC groups, respectively, and estimated duration of response (DoR) was 17.6 months and 9.6 months. At the time of analysis, there were too few deaths to compare overall survival.

The most common adverse events (AEs) experienced by patients treated with osimertinib were diarrhea, rash, dry skin, nail toxicity, stomatitis, and reduced appetite. Serious AEs occurred in 4% of patients treated with osimertinib, most commonly involving pneumonia, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, and pulmonary embolism (PE). The rate of grade 3/4 AEs was 33.7% in the osimertinib group and 44.8% in the SoC group. Patients treated with osimertinib were less likely to discontinue treatment due to AEs (13.3% vs 18.1% of those receiving SoC).

Anemia is a common complication of cancer treatment as well as of cancer itself. Most cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy experience anemia sometime during their treatment course.^1,2 Moderate to severe anemia is associated with an array of symptoms that are known to compromise the physical functioning and quality of life of cancer patients. Common anemia-related symptoms include fatigue, drowsiness, depression, dyspnea, tachycardia, and dizziness.^1,3-7

Symptoms produced by cancer itself or the disease treatment (ie, side effects such as anemia) collectively compose a patient’s symptom burden.⁸ Although the occurrence of anemia-related fatigue has been described more systematically, other clinical presentations of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) are not well characterized. Furthermore, the overall symptom burdens associated with different ranges of hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations have also not been well reported. Although various tools have been developed to facilitate the reporting of fatigue and other symptoms experienced by patients with CIA, such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) questionnaire and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI),^9-11 these questionnaires have not been extensively used outside of the research context. As such, knowledge on symptom burdens associated with CIA in real-world patient populations remains lacking.

Given the common occurrence of CIA, management of CIA and associated symptoms plays an important role to patients’ quality of life during cancer treatment. Symptom control is often the main goal for patients with stage IV cancers, as treatment for disease is most likely palliative or noncurative. To facilitate supportive care planning, it is important to understand patient symptom burdens as chemotherapy progresses over cycles and Hb levels decline. We conducted a comprehensive medical record review study in patients diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), breast cancer, and lung cancers at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large community-based health care delivery system. The objective of this study was to report the occurrence of CIA-related symptoms throughout the course of chemotherapy and by Hb levels.
 

Methods

Study setting and population

KPSC is an integrated managed-care organization that provides comprehensive health services for 4 million racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members who broadly represent the population in Southern California.¹² The organization maintains electronic records of health care received by its members, including physician record notes and clinical databases such as laboratory test results, diagnosis codes, medical procedures, medication dispenses, and disease registries. KPSC’s cancer registry is Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, which is affiliated and routinely collects information on age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, cancer type, histology, and stage at diagnosis.

Patients who met the following inclusion criteria were included in this study: diagnosed with stage IV NHL, breast cancer, or lung cancer at age 18 years or older at KPSC between March 25, 2010 and December 31, 2012; initiated myelosuppressive chemotherapy at KPSC before June 30, 2013 (only the first chemotherapy course was included in this evaluation); and had at least 1 Hb measurement during the course of chemotherapy. Of those who met the inclusion criteria, patients who met the following criteria were excluded if they had less than 12 months KPSC membership before start of chemotherapy, missing information on cancer stage or chemotherapy regimen/agents, a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome before chemotherapy initiation, a diagnosis of inherited anemia, an Hb concentration <10 g/L within 3 months before chemotherapy initiation, a transfusion within 2 weeks before chemotherapy initiation, radiation within 4 months before chemotherapy initiation, or bone marrow transplantation within 12 months before chemotherapy initiation or during the chemotherapy course. These exclusion criteria were applied to evaluate symptom burdens most likely related to CIA as opposed to other cancer treatment or pre-existing anemia.

CIA in this study was defined as moderate to severe anemia with Hb <10 g/dL after chemotherapy initiation. Based on this definition for CIA, all patients who developed CIA between the first chemotherapy administration to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy were included for the record review. In addition, a random sample of 100 patients who did not develop CIA (ie, did not reach an Hb <10 g/dL during chemotherapy) but otherwise met study eligibility criteria was also reviewed to serve as a comparison group. Of those, 2 patients were subsequently excluded after record review because of findings of ineligibility, so only 98 patients were presented. The large number of patients (ie, >4,000) who did not develop CIA made record review of all patients infeasible.
 

Data collection

Data on anemia-related symptoms or signs and anemia-related comorbidities (Table 1) were collected by standardized review of physician record notes in the electronic medical records. A set of 24 anemia-related symptoms were identified based on the literature and clinical expertise and included abdominal pain, blurred vision/double vision/loss of vision, cold intolerance/coldness in hands or feet, depression/anxiety, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea/shortness of breath/tachypnea, edema, fatigue, headache, heart failure, heat intolerance, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, nausea/vomiting, pale skin, palpitations/tachycardia, paralysis/ataxia/numbness or tingling in extremities, pectoral angina/chest pain, sweating/diaphoresis, syncope, and vertigo. Record review period was defined as 1 month before chemotherapy to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy in the first course. To understand the development of new symptoms during chemotherapy treatment, pre-existing symptoms documented within 1 month before chemotherapy initiation were recorded. The entire record review process was standardized between 2 trained abstractors, including the training, instruction manual, ongoing feedback, abstraction form/database, and coding.

The data elements extracted included the date the symptom was documented, date the symptom started, symptom duration (when available), and any relevant comments regarding the symptom (ie, if dyspnea was at rest or on exertion, whether the symptom was a side effect caused by chemotherapy, or change in symptom severity). Ten percent of the records were reviewed independently by 2 abstractors to ensure quality control. Additional quality control measures included SAS algorithms (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) to check reasonability and logical consistency in the abstracted data.

Patient demographic characteristics, cancer stage, additional selected comorbidities (Table 1), chemotherapy information, Hb test results, and anemia treatment, including erythrocyte stimulating agent (ESA) use and red blood cell transfusion, were collected using KPSC’s cancer registry and clinical databases. Anemia was defined by severity as grade 1 (10 g/dL to lower limit of normal, ie, 14 g/dL for men and 12 g/dL for women), grade 2 (8.0-9.9 g/dL), grade 3 (6.5-7.9 g/dL), and grade 4 (<6.5 g/dL) following the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.¹³

Statistical analysis

Distributions of demographic, cancer, and treatment characteristics were calculated by CIA status, overall and by cancer type. Differences between patients who did and did not develop CIA were assessed using chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. For those who developed CIA, the distribution of the worst anemia grade was also calculated for each cycle of chemotherapy.

Next, the distributions for the following symptom categories were calculated in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status: pre-existing symptoms that occurred before chemotherapy, any symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, whether they started before chemotherapy), and incident symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, new symptoms that only started after chemotherapy). Specifically, the proportion of patients with each individual symptom and the distribution of the number of symptoms per patient were calculated. Differences in symptom distribution by CIA status were assessed using chi-square test.

The distribution of symptoms in each chemotherapy cycle was calculated up to 6 chemotherapy cycles (as >80% of the patients only had treatment up to 6 cycles) in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status. For this analysis, a symptom was “mapped” to a cycle if the date (or date range) of the symptom fell within the date range of that chemotherapy cycle. In patients who developed CIA, the distribution of symptoms was also calculated by anemia grade. This was again done on the chemotherapy cycle level. For each chemotherapy cycle, an anemia grade was assigned (no anemia or anemia grade 1, 2, 3, and 4) using the lowest Hb measurement in that cycle. Symptoms that occurred in a chemotherapy cycle were then “mapped” to the anemia grade of that cycle. Some patients had more than 1 anemia event of the same grade (eg, if a patient’s grade 2 anemia persist across cycles). For these patients, we randomly selected only 1 anemia event of the same grade from each patient to be included in this analysis. Patients could still contribute multiple events of different grades to this analysis. We calculated the mean number of symptoms per patient for each anemia grade (ie, 1-4) separately. Because of the small number of patients who developed grade 4 anemia (n = 11), they were combined with the grade 3 patients when the distributions of individual symptoms were evaluated.

All analyses were repeated stratified by gender. P values for differences between men and women were calculated using chi-square test or t test. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.3.
 

Results

A total of 402 stage IV NHL, breast, and lung cancer patients who developed CIA and 98 patients who did not develop CIA during the first course of chemotherapy were included (Figure 1).

Table 3 shows the number and proportion of study patients with each of the symptoms documented before and after chemotherapy initiation for the 2 study samples. Patients who developed CIA had statistically significantly more pre-existing symptoms, incident symptoms, or any symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy compared with patients who did not develop CIA. The mean number of pre-existing symptoms was 1.7 (standard deviation [SD], 2.0) for those with CIA and 1.2 (SD, 1.5) for those without CIA (P = .04). The mean number of symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy was 6.8 (SD, 3.4) and 4.1 (SD, 2.7), respectively (P < .01). Of individual symptoms, fatigue was the most commonly documented symptom during chemotherapy in patients who developed CIA, noted in 90% of the study sample (Table 3). Dyspnea/shortness of breath (58%), nausea/vomiting (56%), and loss of appetite (56%) were documented in 50% or more of these patients. Abdominal pain (35%), depression/anxiety (43%), dizziness/lightheadedness (30%), edema (39%), palpitations/tachycardia (34%), and pectoral angina/chest pain (34%) were documented in 30% or more of these patients. In patients who did not develop CIA, fatigue remained the most prevalent symptom (77% of the patients). Other than fatigue, only dyspnea/shortness of breath (41%), nausea/vomiting (43%) and paralysis/ataxia/tingling in extremities (33%) were noted in 30% or more of this study sample.

Discussion

In this study, we described the number and type of symptoms documented in the medical record notes among stage IV NHL, breast cancer, and lung cancer patients who did or did not develop CIA during chemotherapy. Patients who developed CIA had significantly greater numbers of different symptoms documented during chemotherapy than those who did not develop CIA (6.8 vs 4.1). This difference is clinically significant because most symptoms described in this study can be expected to have a negative impact on a patient’s quality of life. In patients who developed CIA, fatigue was the most commonly documented symptom, noted for 90% of the study population. In addition to fatigue, many other symptoms were noted in a large proportion of patients. In contrast, in patients who did not develop CIA, only a few symptoms (including fatigue) were more commonly noted in this sample. We observed more symptoms in chemotherapy cycles with higher grades of anemia. Of the symptoms examined, abdominal pain, depression, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, heart failure, headache, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, nausea/vomiting, pale skin, pectoral angina, sweating, and syncope particularly demonstrated a clearly increasing prevalence with declining Hb level. We also reported that patients who developed severe anemia (grades 3 and 4) experienced an average of 5 to 6 different symptoms at the time of the anemia episode. These data demonstrated a significant symptom burden in cancer patients with CIA seen in community-based oncology practices. Findings on the types of symptoms most commonly noted in various grades of CIA episodes provided some guidance for supportive care planning. As previous studies have shown a reduction in symptom burden after anemia treatment in patients with CIA,^14-16 our results support the idea of early lab draws and active management of CIA in maintaining quality of life in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Our findings on the prevalence of fatigue are in line with other studies in the literature. Maxwell reported that the prevalence of fatigue was 80% to 96% in cancer patients.¹⁷ Cella and colleagues found that using FACT-General questionnaire, 75% of cancer patients reported fatigue.¹¹ The comparability of our estimate and those found in studies based on patient self-report offered some assurance of the validity of assessing symptom prevalence through physician record notes. In addition to fatigue, we described prevalence of 23 additional symptoms, most of which have not been extensively studied in the literature. Gabrilove and colleagues found that a substantial proportion of patients with CIA had moderate to severe score for lack of appetite (36%) and disturbed sleep (41%) using the MDASI.¹⁰ The prevalence of loss of appetite and insomnia was around 50% and 25%, respectively, in our study samples. A 2013 systematic review of 21 multinational studies reported the pooled prevalence of several nonfatigue symptoms in cancer patients including headache (23%), sleep disturbance/insomnia (49%), appetite changes (45%), nausea/vomiting (26%), diarrhea (15%), depression (34%), dyspnea (44%), dizziness (26%), numbness/tingling (42%), edema (14%), and sweating (28%).¹⁸ Our prevalence estimates in patients with CIA for most of these symptoms were higher, likely because Reilly and colleagues used source studies that included any cancer patients undergoing treatment and not just those with CIA. Our findings on the increased symptom burden in patients who experienced episodes of advanced anemia compared with patients with mild anemia were also consistent with the literature. To this end, several studies using MDASI or the FACT-An reported differential symptom burdens by Hb level based on patient self-report,^10,11,19 including data on improvement in symptom burden and quality of life after anemia was amended with the use of ESA.^20,21

We found that the number of pre-existing symptoms was significantly higher in patients who went on to develop CIA than in patients who did not develop CIA. Specifically, fatigue, loss of appetite, and pale skin before chemotherapy seemed to be significantly more common in patients who went on to develop CIA. This finding suggested that presentation of these symptoms before chemotherapy initiation may be a predictor for developing moderate or severe anemia during treatment. This is a novel hypothesis, as no studies have evaluated the relationship between pretreatment symptom and risk of CIA. However, our study was not designed to address this specific question. Additional investigation is needed to further shed light on whether the occurrence of anemia-related symptoms in nonanemic patients can be used to effectively risk-stratify patients for subsequent CIA.

Contrary to our expectation, the prevalence of most symptoms did not clearly increase as chemotherapy progressed. There are several possible explanations to this phenomenon, with the most likely being related to reporting of anemia-related symptoms. For example, patients might stop reporting the same symptom repeatedly or become adjusted to the new Hb levels, leading to less symptom manifestation. Clinicians may also be less likely to ask about symptoms in later treatment cycles and/or to document chronic symptoms. Several symptoms were rarely documented altogether, such as cold intolerance, heat intolerance, heart failure, and vertigo. Symptoms reported in earlier cycles could also be managed successfully. Another possible explanation is differential loss of follow-up. Patients who experienced severe adverse events or symptoms may terminate treatment prematurely. Thus, symptom burden found toward later cycles may not represent the true symptom burden should everyone who initiated the chemotherapy treatment complete all planned cycles.
 

Limitations

In addition to the limitations already discussed, there are several others that should be considered when interpreting our results. We did not have a consistent measure of symptom severity in the medical records. Duration of symptoms was also often poorly documented by physicians. Therefore, our results are not directly comparable with studies such as the MDASI that incorporate severity or duration in their prevalence measure. There may also be “reporting bias” by the clinicians owing to different perceived levels of severity or clinical relevance of the different symptoms. As a result, some symptoms may be underdocumented, leading to undercounting.

We also did not distinguish the exact cause of the symptoms (ie, owing to anemia, cancer, chemotherapy itself, or other chemotherapy-induced complications), as it was not possible to reliably ascertain the cause from record review. Furthermore, symptom assessment was not separately performed for grade 4 anemia because of the small number of events in the study population. We also did not plan to evaluate the impact of anemia treatment on symptom burden, as our goal was to comprehensively describe a wide spectrum of symptoms experienced by patients with different Hb levels. However, previous studies have shown the benefit of treatments that correct CIA in symptom management.^14-16 Finally, this study does not inform about the relative importance of these symptoms to patients’ quality of life. To this end, a qualitative study found fatigue, shortness of breath, and lightheadedness/dizziness to be the most important symptoms ranked by patients with CIA.²²

Despite the potential limitations, our study has several important strengths. In addition to fatigue, patients with CIA suffer from a wide range of other anemia-related symptoms, but data on the prevalence of these symptoms have been lacking. To our knowledge, this is among the first studies that collected data on a comprehensive list of symptoms and provided detailed analysis by chemotherapy cycle and anemia grade. The combined use of KPSC’s clinical databases and medical record review allowed us to provide detailed characterization of the study population in terms of their treatment history, history of comorbidities, and laboratory data.
 

Conclusions

Our data provide physicians a comprehensive picture of prevalence of various types of symptoms and how symptom burden evolves as chemotherapy cycle and anemia severity progress. High-grade CIA correlates with an increased symptom burden. Such an understanding can be crucial in facilitating supportive care planning by helping physicians anticipate the timing and proactively determine the management approach of chemotherapy-related anemia and its symptoms.

Anemia is a common complication of cancer treatment as well as of cancer itself. Most cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy experience anemia sometime during their treatment course.^1,2 Moderate to severe anemia is associated with an array of symptoms that are known to compromise the physical functioning and quality of life of cancer patients. Common anemia-related symptoms include fatigue, drowsiness, depression, dyspnea, tachycardia, and dizziness.^1,3-7

Symptoms produced by cancer itself or the disease treatment (ie, side effects such as anemia) collectively compose a patient’s symptom burden.⁸ Although the occurrence of anemia-related fatigue has been described more systematically, other clinical presentations of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) are not well characterized. Furthermore, the overall symptom burdens associated with different ranges of hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations have also not been well reported. Although various tools have been developed to facilitate the reporting of fatigue and other symptoms experienced by patients with CIA, such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) questionnaire and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI),^9-11 these questionnaires have not been extensively used outside of the research context. As such, knowledge on symptom burdens associated with CIA in real-world patient populations remains lacking.

Given the common occurrence of CIA, management of CIA and associated symptoms plays an important role to patients’ quality of life during cancer treatment. Symptom control is often the main goal for patients with stage IV cancers, as treatment for disease is most likely palliative or noncurative. To facilitate supportive care planning, it is important to understand patient symptom burdens as chemotherapy progresses over cycles and Hb levels decline. We conducted a comprehensive medical record review study in patients diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), breast cancer, and lung cancers at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large community-based health care delivery system. The objective of this study was to report the occurrence of CIA-related symptoms throughout the course of chemotherapy and by Hb levels.
 

Methods

Study setting and population

KPSC is an integrated managed-care organization that provides comprehensive health services for 4 million racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members who broadly represent the population in Southern California.¹² The organization maintains electronic records of health care received by its members, including physician record notes and clinical databases such as laboratory test results, diagnosis codes, medical procedures, medication dispenses, and disease registries. KPSC’s cancer registry is Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, which is affiliated and routinely collects information on age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, cancer type, histology, and stage at diagnosis.

Patients who met the following inclusion criteria were included in this study: diagnosed with stage IV NHL, breast cancer, or lung cancer at age 18 years or older at KPSC between March 25, 2010 and December 31, 2012; initiated myelosuppressive chemotherapy at KPSC before June 30, 2013 (only the first chemotherapy course was included in this evaluation); and had at least 1 Hb measurement during the course of chemotherapy. Of those who met the inclusion criteria, patients who met the following criteria were excluded if they had less than 12 months KPSC membership before start of chemotherapy, missing information on cancer stage or chemotherapy regimen/agents, a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome before chemotherapy initiation, a diagnosis of inherited anemia, an Hb concentration <10 g/L within 3 months before chemotherapy initiation, a transfusion within 2 weeks before chemotherapy initiation, radiation within 4 months before chemotherapy initiation, or bone marrow transplantation within 12 months before chemotherapy initiation or during the chemotherapy course. These exclusion criteria were applied to evaluate symptom burdens most likely related to CIA as opposed to other cancer treatment or pre-existing anemia.

CIA in this study was defined as moderate to severe anemia with Hb <10 g/dL after chemotherapy initiation. Based on this definition for CIA, all patients who developed CIA between the first chemotherapy administration to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy were included for the record review. In addition, a random sample of 100 patients who did not develop CIA (ie, did not reach an Hb <10 g/dL during chemotherapy) but otherwise met study eligibility criteria was also reviewed to serve as a comparison group. Of those, 2 patients were subsequently excluded after record review because of findings of ineligibility, so only 98 patients were presented. The large number of patients (ie, >4,000) who did not develop CIA made record review of all patients infeasible.
 

Data collection

Data on anemia-related symptoms or signs and anemia-related comorbidities (Table 1) were collected by standardized review of physician record notes in the electronic medical records. A set of 24 anemia-related symptoms were identified based on the literature and clinical expertise and included abdominal pain, blurred vision/double vision/loss of vision, cold intolerance/coldness in hands or feet, depression/anxiety, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea/shortness of breath/tachypnea, edema, fatigue, headache, heart failure, heat intolerance, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, nausea/vomiting, pale skin, palpitations/tachycardia, paralysis/ataxia/numbness or tingling in extremities, pectoral angina/chest pain, sweating/diaphoresis, syncope, and vertigo. Record review period was defined as 1 month before chemotherapy to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy in the first course. To understand the development of new symptoms during chemotherapy treatment, pre-existing symptoms documented within 1 month before chemotherapy initiation were recorded. The entire record review process was standardized between 2 trained abstractors, including the training, instruction manual, ongoing feedback, abstraction form/database, and coding.

The data elements extracted included the date the symptom was documented, date the symptom started, symptom duration (when available), and any relevant comments regarding the symptom (ie, if dyspnea was at rest or on exertion, whether the symptom was a side effect caused by chemotherapy, or change in symptom severity). Ten percent of the records were reviewed independently by 2 abstractors to ensure quality control. Additional quality control measures included SAS algorithms (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) to check reasonability and logical consistency in the abstracted data.

Patient demographic characteristics, cancer stage, additional selected comorbidities (Table 1), chemotherapy information, Hb test results, and anemia treatment, including erythrocyte stimulating agent (ESA) use and red blood cell transfusion, were collected using KPSC’s cancer registry and clinical databases. Anemia was defined by severity as grade 1 (10 g/dL to lower limit of normal, ie, 14 g/dL for men and 12 g/dL for women), grade 2 (8.0-9.9 g/dL), grade 3 (6.5-7.9 g/dL), and grade 4 (<6.5 g/dL) following the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.¹³

Statistical analysis

Distributions of demographic, cancer, and treatment characteristics were calculated by CIA status, overall and by cancer type. Differences between patients who did and did not develop CIA were assessed using chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. For those who developed CIA, the distribution of the worst anemia grade was also calculated for each cycle of chemotherapy.

Next, the distributions for the following symptom categories were calculated in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status: pre-existing symptoms that occurred before chemotherapy, any symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, whether they started before chemotherapy), and incident symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, new symptoms that only started after chemotherapy). Specifically, the proportion of patients with each individual symptom and the distribution of the number of symptoms per patient were calculated. Differences in symptom distribution by CIA status were assessed using chi-square test.

The distribution of symptoms in each chemotherapy cycle was calculated up to 6 chemotherapy cycles (as >80% of the patients only had treatment up to 6 cycles) in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status. For this analysis, a symptom was “mapped” to a cycle if the date (or date range) of the symptom fell within the date range of that chemotherapy cycle. In patients who developed CIA, the distribution of symptoms was also calculated by anemia grade. This was again done on the chemotherapy cycle level. For each chemotherapy cycle, an anemia grade was assigned (no anemia or anemia grade 1, 2, 3, and 4) using the lowest Hb measurement in that cycle. Symptoms that occurred in a chemotherapy cycle were then “mapped” to the anemia grade of that cycle. Some patients had more than 1 anemia event of the same grade (eg, if a patient’s grade 2 anemia persist across cycles). For these patients, we randomly selected only 1 anemia event of the same grade from each patient to be included in this analysis. Patients could still contribute multiple events of different grades to this analysis. We calculated the mean number of symptoms per patient for each anemia grade (ie, 1-4) separately. Because of the small number of patients who developed grade 4 anemia (n = 11), they were combined with the grade 3 patients when the distributions of individual symptoms were evaluated.

All analyses were repeated stratified by gender. P values for differences between men and women were calculated using chi-square test or t test. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.3.
 

Results

A total of 402 stage IV NHL, breast, and lung cancer patients who developed CIA and 98 patients who did not develop CIA during the first course of chemotherapy were included (Figure 1).

Table 3 shows the number and proportion of study patients with each of the symptoms documented before and after chemotherapy initiation for the 2 study samples. Patients who developed CIA had statistically significantly more pre-existing symptoms, incident symptoms, or any symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy compared with patients who did not develop CIA. The mean number of pre-existing symptoms was 1.7 (standard deviation [SD], 2.0) for those with CIA and 1.2 (SD, 1.5) for those without CIA (P = .04). The mean number of symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy was 6.8 (SD, 3.4) and 4.1 (SD, 2.7), respectively (P < .01). Of individual symptoms, fatigue was the most commonly documented symptom during chemotherapy in patients who developed CIA, noted in 90% of the study sample (Table 3). Dyspnea/shortness of breath (58%), nausea/vomiting (56%), and loss of appetite (56%) were documented in 50% or more of these patients. Abdominal pain (35%), depression/anxiety (43%), dizziness/lightheadedness (30%), edema (39%), palpitations/tachycardia (34%), and pectoral angina/chest pain (34%) were documented in 30% or more of these patients. In patients who did not develop CIA, fatigue remained the most prevalent symptom (77% of the patients). Other than fatigue, only dyspnea/shortness of breath (41%), nausea/vomiting (43%) and paralysis/ataxia/tingling in extremities (33%) were noted in 30% or more of this study sample.

Discussion

In this study, we described the number and type of symptoms documented in the medical record notes among stage IV NHL, breast cancer, and lung cancer patients who did or did not develop CIA during chemotherapy. Patients who developed CIA had significantly greater numbers of different symptoms documented during chemotherapy than those who did not develop CIA (6.8 vs 4.1). This difference is clinically significant because most symptoms described in this study can be expected to have a negative impact on a patient’s quality of life. In patients who developed CIA, fatigue was the most commonly documented symptom, noted for 90% of the study population. In addition to fatigue, many other symptoms were noted in a large proportion of patients. In contrast, in patients who did not develop CIA, only a few symptoms (including fatigue) were more commonly noted in this sample. We observed more symptoms in chemotherapy cycles with higher grades of anemia. Of the symptoms examined, abdominal pain, depression, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, heart failure, headache, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, nausea/vomiting, pale skin, pectoral angina, sweating, and syncope particularly demonstrated a clearly increasing prevalence with declining Hb level. We also reported that patients who developed severe anemia (grades 3 and 4) experienced an average of 5 to 6 different symptoms at the time of the anemia episode. These data demonstrated a significant symptom burden in cancer patients with CIA seen in community-based oncology practices. Findings on the types of symptoms most commonly noted in various grades of CIA episodes provided some guidance for supportive care planning. As previous studies have shown a reduction in symptom burden after anemia treatment in patients with CIA,^14-16 our results support the idea of early lab draws and active management of CIA in maintaining quality of life in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Our findings on the prevalence of fatigue are in line with other studies in the literature. Maxwell reported that the prevalence of fatigue was 80% to 96% in cancer patients.¹⁷ Cella and colleagues found that using FACT-General questionnaire, 75% of cancer patients reported fatigue.¹¹ The comparability of our estimate and those found in studies based on patient self-report offered some assurance of the validity of assessing symptom prevalence through physician record notes. In addition to fatigue, we described prevalence of 23 additional symptoms, most of which have not been extensively studied in the literature. Gabrilove and colleagues found that a substantial proportion of patients with CIA had moderate to severe score for lack of appetite (36%) and disturbed sleep (41%) using the MDASI.¹⁰ The prevalence of loss of appetite and insomnia was around 50% and 25%, respectively, in our study samples. A 2013 systematic review of 21 multinational studies reported the pooled prevalence of several nonfatigue symptoms in cancer patients including headache (23%), sleep disturbance/insomnia (49%), appetite changes (45%), nausea/vomiting (26%), diarrhea (15%), depression (34%), dyspnea (44%), dizziness (26%), numbness/tingling (42%), edema (14%), and sweating (28%).¹⁸ Our prevalence estimates in patients with CIA for most of these symptoms were higher, likely because Reilly and colleagues used source studies that included any cancer patients undergoing treatment and not just those with CIA. Our findings on the increased symptom burden in patients who experienced episodes of advanced anemia compared with patients with mild anemia were also consistent with the literature. To this end, several studies using MDASI or the FACT-An reported differential symptom burdens by Hb level based on patient self-report,^10,11,19 including data on improvement in symptom burden and quality of life after anemia was amended with the use of ESA.^20,21

We found that the number of pre-existing symptoms was significantly higher in patients who went on to develop CIA than in patients who did not develop CIA. Specifically, fatigue, loss of appetite, and pale skin before chemotherapy seemed to be significantly more common in patients who went on to develop CIA. This finding suggested that presentation of these symptoms before chemotherapy initiation may be a predictor for developing moderate or severe anemia during treatment. This is a novel hypothesis, as no studies have evaluated the relationship between pretreatment symptom and risk of CIA. However, our study was not designed to address this specific question. Additional investigation is needed to further shed light on whether the occurrence of anemia-related symptoms in nonanemic patients can be used to effectively risk-stratify patients for subsequent CIA.

Contrary to our expectation, the prevalence of most symptoms did not clearly increase as chemotherapy progressed. There are several possible explanations to this phenomenon, with the most likely being related to reporting of anemia-related symptoms. For example, patients might stop reporting the same symptom repeatedly or become adjusted to the new Hb levels, leading to less symptom manifestation. Clinicians may also be less likely to ask about symptoms in later treatment cycles and/or to document chronic symptoms. Several symptoms were rarely documented altogether, such as cold intolerance, heat intolerance, heart failure, and vertigo. Symptoms reported in earlier cycles could also be managed successfully. Another possible explanation is differential loss of follow-up. Patients who experienced severe adverse events or symptoms may terminate treatment prematurely. Thus, symptom burden found toward later cycles may not represent the true symptom burden should everyone who initiated the chemotherapy treatment complete all planned cycles.
 

Limitations

In addition to the limitations already discussed, there are several others that should be considered when interpreting our results. We did not have a consistent measure of symptom severity in the medical records. Duration of symptoms was also often poorly documented by physicians. Therefore, our results are not directly comparable with studies such as the MDASI that incorporate severity or duration in their prevalence measure. There may also be “reporting bias” by the clinicians owing to different perceived levels of severity or clinical relevance of the different symptoms. As a result, some symptoms may be underdocumented, leading to undercounting.

We also did not distinguish the exact cause of the symptoms (ie, owing to anemia, cancer, chemotherapy itself, or other chemotherapy-induced complications), as it was not possible to reliably ascertain the cause from record review. Furthermore, symptom assessment was not separately performed for grade 4 anemia because of the small number of events in the study population. We also did not plan to evaluate the impact of anemia treatment on symptom burden, as our goal was to comprehensively describe a wide spectrum of symptoms experienced by patients with different Hb levels. However, previous studies have shown the benefit of treatments that correct CIA in symptom management.^14-16 Finally, this study does not inform about the relative importance of these symptoms to patients’ quality of life. To this end, a qualitative study found fatigue, shortness of breath, and lightheadedness/dizziness to be the most important symptoms ranked by patients with CIA.²²

Despite the potential limitations, our study has several important strengths. In addition to fatigue, patients with CIA suffer from a wide range of other anemia-related symptoms, but data on the prevalence of these symptoms have been lacking. To our knowledge, this is among the first studies that collected data on a comprehensive list of symptoms and provided detailed analysis by chemotherapy cycle and anemia grade. The combined use of KPSC’s clinical databases and medical record review allowed us to provide detailed characterization of the study population in terms of their treatment history, history of comorbidities, and laboratory data.
 

Conclusions

Our data provide physicians a comprehensive picture of prevalence of various types of symptoms and how symptom burden evolves as chemotherapy cycle and anemia severity progress. High-grade CIA correlates with an increased symptom burden. Such an understanding can be crucial in facilitating supportive care planning by helping physicians anticipate the timing and proactively determine the management approach of chemotherapy-related anemia and its symptoms.

Anemia is a common complication of cancer treatment as well as of cancer itself. Most cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy experience anemia sometime during their treatment course.^1,2 Moderate to severe anemia is associated with an array of symptoms that are known to compromise the physical functioning and quality of life of cancer patients. Common anemia-related symptoms include fatigue, drowsiness, depression, dyspnea, tachycardia, and dizziness.^1,3-7

Symptoms produced by cancer itself or the disease treatment (ie, side effects such as anemia) collectively compose a patient’s symptom burden.⁸ Although the occurrence of anemia-related fatigue has been described more systematically, other clinical presentations of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) are not well characterized. Furthermore, the overall symptom burdens associated with different ranges of hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations have also not been well reported. Although various tools have been developed to facilitate the reporting of fatigue and other symptoms experienced by patients with CIA, such as the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) questionnaire and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI),^9-11 these questionnaires have not been extensively used outside of the research context. As such, knowledge on symptom burdens associated with CIA in real-world patient populations remains lacking.

Given the common occurrence of CIA, management of CIA and associated symptoms plays an important role to patients’ quality of life during cancer treatment. Symptom control is often the main goal for patients with stage IV cancers, as treatment for disease is most likely palliative or noncurative. To facilitate supportive care planning, it is important to understand patient symptom burdens as chemotherapy progresses over cycles and Hb levels decline. We conducted a comprehensive medical record review study in patients diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), breast cancer, and lung cancers at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large community-based health care delivery system. The objective of this study was to report the occurrence of CIA-related symptoms throughout the course of chemotherapy and by Hb levels.
 

Methods

Study setting and population

KPSC is an integrated managed-care organization that provides comprehensive health services for 4 million racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members who broadly represent the population in Southern California.¹² The organization maintains electronic records of health care received by its members, including physician record notes and clinical databases such as laboratory test results, diagnosis codes, medical procedures, medication dispenses, and disease registries. KPSC’s cancer registry is Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, which is affiliated and routinely collects information on age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, cancer type, histology, and stage at diagnosis.

Patients who met the following inclusion criteria were included in this study: diagnosed with stage IV NHL, breast cancer, or lung cancer at age 18 years or older at KPSC between March 25, 2010 and December 31, 2012; initiated myelosuppressive chemotherapy at KPSC before June 30, 2013 (only the first chemotherapy course was included in this evaluation); and had at least 1 Hb measurement during the course of chemotherapy. Of those who met the inclusion criteria, patients who met the following criteria were excluded if they had less than 12 months KPSC membership before start of chemotherapy, missing information on cancer stage or chemotherapy regimen/agents, a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome before chemotherapy initiation, a diagnosis of inherited anemia, an Hb concentration <10 g/L within 3 months before chemotherapy initiation, a transfusion within 2 weeks before chemotherapy initiation, radiation within 4 months before chemotherapy initiation, or bone marrow transplantation within 12 months before chemotherapy initiation or during the chemotherapy course. These exclusion criteria were applied to evaluate symptom burdens most likely related to CIA as opposed to other cancer treatment or pre-existing anemia.

CIA in this study was defined as moderate to severe anemia with Hb <10 g/dL after chemotherapy initiation. Based on this definition for CIA, all patients who developed CIA between the first chemotherapy administration to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy were included for the record review. In addition, a random sample of 100 patients who did not develop CIA (ie, did not reach an Hb <10 g/dL during chemotherapy) but otherwise met study eligibility criteria was also reviewed to serve as a comparison group. Of those, 2 patients were subsequently excluded after record review because of findings of ineligibility, so only 98 patients were presented. The large number of patients (ie, >4,000) who did not develop CIA made record review of all patients infeasible.
 

Data collection

Data on anemia-related symptoms or signs and anemia-related comorbidities (Table 1) were collected by standardized review of physician record notes in the electronic medical records. A set of 24 anemia-related symptoms were identified based on the literature and clinical expertise and included abdominal pain, blurred vision/double vision/loss of vision, cold intolerance/coldness in hands or feet, depression/anxiety, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea/shortness of breath/tachypnea, edema, fatigue, headache, heart failure, heat intolerance, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, nausea/vomiting, pale skin, palpitations/tachycardia, paralysis/ataxia/numbness or tingling in extremities, pectoral angina/chest pain, sweating/diaphoresis, syncope, and vertigo. Record review period was defined as 1 month before chemotherapy to 60 days after the last dose of chemotherapy in the first course. To understand the development of new symptoms during chemotherapy treatment, pre-existing symptoms documented within 1 month before chemotherapy initiation were recorded. The entire record review process was standardized between 2 trained abstractors, including the training, instruction manual, ongoing feedback, abstraction form/database, and coding.

The data elements extracted included the date the symptom was documented, date the symptom started, symptom duration (when available), and any relevant comments regarding the symptom (ie, if dyspnea was at rest or on exertion, whether the symptom was a side effect caused by chemotherapy, or change in symptom severity). Ten percent of the records were reviewed independently by 2 abstractors to ensure quality control. Additional quality control measures included SAS algorithms (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) to check reasonability and logical consistency in the abstracted data.

Patient demographic characteristics, cancer stage, additional selected comorbidities (Table 1), chemotherapy information, Hb test results, and anemia treatment, including erythrocyte stimulating agent (ESA) use and red blood cell transfusion, were collected using KPSC’s cancer registry and clinical databases. Anemia was defined by severity as grade 1 (10 g/dL to lower limit of normal, ie, 14 g/dL for men and 12 g/dL for women), grade 2 (8.0-9.9 g/dL), grade 3 (6.5-7.9 g/dL), and grade 4 (<6.5 g/dL) following the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.¹³

Statistical analysis

Distributions of demographic, cancer, and treatment characteristics were calculated by CIA status, overall and by cancer type. Differences between patients who did and did not develop CIA were assessed using chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. For those who developed CIA, the distribution of the worst anemia grade was also calculated for each cycle of chemotherapy.

Next, the distributions for the following symptom categories were calculated in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status: pre-existing symptoms that occurred before chemotherapy, any symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, whether they started before chemotherapy), and incident symptoms during chemotherapy (ie, new symptoms that only started after chemotherapy). Specifically, the proportion of patients with each individual symptom and the distribution of the number of symptoms per patient were calculated. Differences in symptom distribution by CIA status were assessed using chi-square test.

The distribution of symptoms in each chemotherapy cycle was calculated up to 6 chemotherapy cycles (as >80% of the patients only had treatment up to 6 cycles) in the 2 study samples defined by CIA status. For this analysis, a symptom was “mapped” to a cycle if the date (or date range) of the symptom fell within the date range of that chemotherapy cycle. In patients who developed CIA, the distribution of symptoms was also calculated by anemia grade. This was again done on the chemotherapy cycle level. For each chemotherapy cycle, an anemia grade was assigned (no anemia or anemia grade 1, 2, 3, and 4) using the lowest Hb measurement in that cycle. Symptoms that occurred in a chemotherapy cycle were then “mapped” to the anemia grade of that cycle. Some patients had more than 1 anemia event of the same grade (eg, if a patient’s grade 2 anemia persist across cycles). For these patients, we randomly selected only 1 anemia event of the same grade from each patient to be included in this analysis. Patients could still contribute multiple events of different grades to this analysis. We calculated the mean number of symptoms per patient for each anemia grade (ie, 1-4) separately. Because of the small number of patients who developed grade 4 anemia (n = 11), they were combined with the grade 3 patients when the distributions of individual symptoms were evaluated.

All analyses were repeated stratified by gender. P values for differences between men and women were calculated using chi-square test or t test. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.3.
 

Results

A total of 402 stage IV NHL, breast, and lung cancer patients who developed CIA and 98 patients who did not develop CIA during the first course of chemotherapy were included (Figure 1).

Table 3 shows the number and proportion of study patients with each of the symptoms documented before and after chemotherapy initiation for the 2 study samples. Patients who developed CIA had statistically significantly more pre-existing symptoms, incident symptoms, or any symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy compared with patients who did not develop CIA. The mean number of pre-existing symptoms was 1.7 (standard deviation [SD], 2.0) for those with CIA and 1.2 (SD, 1.5) for those without CIA (P = .04). The mean number of symptoms that occurred during chemotherapy was 6.8 (SD, 3.4) and 4.1 (SD, 2.7), respectively (P < .01). Of individual symptoms, fatigue was the most commonly documented symptom during chemotherapy in patients who developed CIA, noted in 90% of the study sample (Table 3). Dyspnea/shortness of breath (58%), nausea/vomiting (56%), and loss of appetite (56%) were documented in 50% or more of these patients. Abdominal pain (35%), depression/anxiety (43%), dizziness/lightheadedness (30%), edema (39%), palpitations/tachycardia (34%), and pectoral angina/chest pain (34%) were documented in 30% or more of these patients. In patients who did not develop CIA, fatigue remained the most prevalent symptom (77% of the patients). Other than fatigue, only dyspnea/shortness of breath (41%), nausea/vomiting (43%) and paralysis/ataxia/tingling in extremities (33%) were noted in 30% or more of this study sample.

Discussion

In this study, we described the number and type of symptoms documented in the medical record notes among stage IV NHL, breast cancer, and lung cancer patients who did or did not develop CIA during chemotherapy. Patients who developed CIA had significantly greater numbers of different symptoms documented during chemotherapy than those who did not develop CIA (6.8 vs 4.1). This difference is clinically significant because most symptoms described in this study can be expected to have a negative impact on a patient’s quality of life. In patients who developed CIA, fatigue was the most commonly documented symptom, noted for 90% of the study population. In addition to fatigue, many other symptoms were noted in a large proportion of patients. In contrast, in patients who did not develop CIA, only a few symptoms (including fatigue) were more commonly noted in this sample. We observed more symptoms in chemotherapy cycles with higher grades of anemia. Of the symptoms examined, abdominal pain, depression, diarrhea, dizziness/lightheadedness, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, heart failure, headache, hypotension, insomnia, leg pain, loss of appetite, nausea/vomiting, pale skin, pectoral angina, sweating, and syncope particularly demonstrated a clearly increasing prevalence with declining Hb level. We also reported that patients who developed severe anemia (grades 3 and 4) experienced an average of 5 to 6 different symptoms at the time of the anemia episode. These data demonstrated a significant symptom burden in cancer patients with CIA seen in community-based oncology practices. Findings on the types of symptoms most commonly noted in various grades of CIA episodes provided some guidance for supportive care planning. As previous studies have shown a reduction in symptom burden after anemia treatment in patients with CIA,^14-16 our results support the idea of early lab draws and active management of CIA in maintaining quality of life in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Our findings on the prevalence of fatigue are in line with other studies in the literature. Maxwell reported that the prevalence of fatigue was 80% to 96% in cancer patients.¹⁷ Cella and colleagues found that using FACT-General questionnaire, 75% of cancer patients reported fatigue.¹¹ The comparability of our estimate and those found in studies based on patient self-report offered some assurance of the validity of assessing symptom prevalence through physician record notes. In addition to fatigue, we described prevalence of 23 additional symptoms, most of which have not been extensively studied in the literature. Gabrilove and colleagues found that a substantial proportion of patients with CIA had moderate to severe score for lack of appetite (36%) and disturbed sleep (41%) using the MDASI.¹⁰ The prevalence of loss of appetite and insomnia was around 50% and 25%, respectively, in our study samples. A 2013 systematic review of 21 multinational studies reported the pooled prevalence of several nonfatigue symptoms in cancer patients including headache (23%), sleep disturbance/insomnia (49%), appetite changes (45%), nausea/vomiting (26%), diarrhea (15%), depression (34%), dyspnea (44%), dizziness (26%), numbness/tingling (42%), edema (14%), and sweating (28%).¹⁸ Our prevalence estimates in patients with CIA for most of these symptoms were higher, likely because Reilly and colleagues used source studies that included any cancer patients undergoing treatment and not just those with CIA. Our findings on the increased symptom burden in patients who experienced episodes of advanced anemia compared with patients with mild anemia were also consistent with the literature. To this end, several studies using MDASI or the FACT-An reported differential symptom burdens by Hb level based on patient self-report,^10,11,19 including data on improvement in symptom burden and quality of life after anemia was amended with the use of ESA.^20,21

We found that the number of pre-existing symptoms was significantly higher in patients who went on to develop CIA than in patients who did not develop CIA. Specifically, fatigue, loss of appetite, and pale skin before chemotherapy seemed to be significantly more common in patients who went on to develop CIA. This finding suggested that presentation of these symptoms before chemotherapy initiation may be a predictor for developing moderate or severe anemia during treatment. This is a novel hypothesis, as no studies have evaluated the relationship between pretreatment symptom and risk of CIA. However, our study was not designed to address this specific question. Additional investigation is needed to further shed light on whether the occurrence of anemia-related symptoms in nonanemic patients can be used to effectively risk-stratify patients for subsequent CIA.

Contrary to our expectation, the prevalence of most symptoms did not clearly increase as chemotherapy progressed. There are several possible explanations to this phenomenon, with the most likely being related to reporting of anemia-related symptoms. For example, patients might stop reporting the same symptom repeatedly or become adjusted to the new Hb levels, leading to less symptom manifestation. Clinicians may also be less likely to ask about symptoms in later treatment cycles and/or to document chronic symptoms. Several symptoms were rarely documented altogether, such as cold intolerance, heat intolerance, heart failure, and vertigo. Symptoms reported in earlier cycles could also be managed successfully. Another possible explanation is differential loss of follow-up. Patients who experienced severe adverse events or symptoms may terminate treatment prematurely. Thus, symptom burden found toward later cycles may not represent the true symptom burden should everyone who initiated the chemotherapy treatment complete all planned cycles.
 

Limitations

In addition to the limitations already discussed, there are several others that should be considered when interpreting our results. We did not have a consistent measure of symptom severity in the medical records. Duration of symptoms was also often poorly documented by physicians. Therefore, our results are not directly comparable with studies such as the MDASI that incorporate severity or duration in their prevalence measure. There may also be “reporting bias” by the clinicians owing to different perceived levels of severity or clinical relevance of the different symptoms. As a result, some symptoms may be underdocumented, leading to undercounting.

We also did not distinguish the exact cause of the symptoms (ie, owing to anemia, cancer, chemotherapy itself, or other chemotherapy-induced complications), as it was not possible to reliably ascertain the cause from record review. Furthermore, symptom assessment was not separately performed for grade 4 anemia because of the small number of events in the study population. We also did not plan to evaluate the impact of anemia treatment on symptom burden, as our goal was to comprehensively describe a wide spectrum of symptoms experienced by patients with different Hb levels. However, previous studies have shown the benefit of treatments that correct CIA in symptom management.^14-16 Finally, this study does not inform about the relative importance of these symptoms to patients’ quality of life. To this end, a qualitative study found fatigue, shortness of breath, and lightheadedness/dizziness to be the most important symptoms ranked by patients with CIA.²²

Despite the potential limitations, our study has several important strengths. In addition to fatigue, patients with CIA suffer from a wide range of other anemia-related symptoms, but data on the prevalence of these symptoms have been lacking. To our knowledge, this is among the first studies that collected data on a comprehensive list of symptoms and provided detailed analysis by chemotherapy cycle and anemia grade. The combined use of KPSC’s clinical databases and medical record review allowed us to provide detailed characterization of the study population in terms of their treatment history, history of comorbidities, and laboratory data.
 

Conclusions

Our data provide physicians a comprehensive picture of prevalence of various types of symptoms and how symptom burden evolves as chemotherapy cycle and anemia severity progress. High-grade CIA correlates with an increased symptom burden. Such an understanding can be crucial in facilitating supportive care planning by helping physicians anticipate the timing and proactively determine the management approach of chemotherapy-related anemia and its symptoms.

WASHINGTON – Positron emission tomography (PET) using the CD8-tracer ⁸⁹Zr-IAB22M2C was safe and provided detailed whole-body information on the biodistribution of CD8 T-cells in advanced solid tumors and reference tissue in an open-label, phase 1, first-in-human study.

The findings demonstrate the ability of the tracer–an anti-CD8 zirconium-labeled minibody–to noninvasively detect CD8 distribution in patients with metastatic solid tumors, potentially providing more information – and more quickly – than is possible with a single biopsy, Michael S. Gordon, MD, reported during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

During a dose escalation period (stage 1) of the study, six patients received 3 mCi of ⁸⁹Zr-IAB22M2C once intravenously followed by serial PET scans over a period of 5-7 days. The patients received increasing protein doses of 0.2 through 10 mg to establish safety and determine a “recommended protein dose and scanning parameters for subsequent trials,” explained Dr. Gordon of HonorHealth Research Institute, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Stage 1 was followed by a dose expansion period (stage 2) in which an additional nine subjects were scanned to better delineate the recommended phase 2 study dose, he said.

All patients were monitored for drug-related adverse events and evaluated with blood chemistry, hematology, cytokine assay, and anti-drug antibodies. Biodistribution, radiodosimetry and semi-quantitative evaluation of CD8-tracer uptake were performed in all patients.

“We saw rapid clearance with excretion through the hepatobiliary mechanism, uptake in T-cell rich tissues, and no uptake in background normal tissues – so no uptake in muscle, heart, brain, or lungs,” he said, adding that “tumor uptake was variable and was clearly seen in 10 out of 15 patients.

“The protein dose that was considered to have favorable biodistribution was the range between 0.5 and 1.5, and based upon the analysis, the most favorable imaging time point ... was deemed to be 24 hours,” he said, noting that changes could be seen in as early as 6 hours.

SOURCE: Gordon M et al., SITC 2018: Abstract LB49.

WASHINGTON – Positron emission tomography (PET) using the CD8-tracer ⁸⁹Zr-IAB22M2C was safe and provided detailed whole-body information on the biodistribution of CD8 T-cells in advanced solid tumors and reference tissue in an open-label, phase 1, first-in-human study.

The findings demonstrate the ability of the tracer–an anti-CD8 zirconium-labeled minibody–to noninvasively detect CD8 distribution in patients with metastatic solid tumors, potentially providing more information – and more quickly – than is possible with a single biopsy, Michael S. Gordon, MD, reported during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

During a dose escalation period (stage 1) of the study, six patients received 3 mCi of ⁸⁹Zr-IAB22M2C once intravenously followed by serial PET scans over a period of 5-7 days. The patients received increasing protein doses of 0.2 through 10 mg to establish safety and determine a “recommended protein dose and scanning parameters for subsequent trials,” explained Dr. Gordon of HonorHealth Research Institute, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Stage 1 was followed by a dose expansion period (stage 2) in which an additional nine subjects were scanned to better delineate the recommended phase 2 study dose, he said.

All patients were monitored for drug-related adverse events and evaluated with blood chemistry, hematology, cytokine assay, and anti-drug antibodies. Biodistribution, radiodosimetry and semi-quantitative evaluation of CD8-tracer uptake were performed in all patients.

“We saw rapid clearance with excretion through the hepatobiliary mechanism, uptake in T-cell rich tissues, and no uptake in background normal tissues – so no uptake in muscle, heart, brain, or lungs,” he said, adding that “tumor uptake was variable and was clearly seen in 10 out of 15 patients.

“The protein dose that was considered to have favorable biodistribution was the range between 0.5 and 1.5, and based upon the analysis, the most favorable imaging time point ... was deemed to be 24 hours,” he said, noting that changes could be seen in as early as 6 hours.

SOURCE: Gordon M et al., SITC 2018: Abstract LB49.

WASHINGTON – Positron emission tomography (PET) using the CD8-tracer ⁸⁹Zr-IAB22M2C was safe and provided detailed whole-body information on the biodistribution of CD8 T-cells in advanced solid tumors and reference tissue in an open-label, phase 1, first-in-human study.

The findings demonstrate the ability of the tracer–an anti-CD8 zirconium-labeled minibody–to noninvasively detect CD8 distribution in patients with metastatic solid tumors, potentially providing more information – and more quickly – than is possible with a single biopsy, Michael S. Gordon, MD, reported during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

During a dose escalation period (stage 1) of the study, six patients received 3 mCi of ⁸⁹Zr-IAB22M2C once intravenously followed by serial PET scans over a period of 5-7 days. The patients received increasing protein doses of 0.2 through 10 mg to establish safety and determine a “recommended protein dose and scanning parameters for subsequent trials,” explained Dr. Gordon of HonorHealth Research Institute, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Stage 1 was followed by a dose expansion period (stage 2) in which an additional nine subjects were scanned to better delineate the recommended phase 2 study dose, he said.

All patients were monitored for drug-related adverse events and evaluated with blood chemistry, hematology, cytokine assay, and anti-drug antibodies. Biodistribution, radiodosimetry and semi-quantitative evaluation of CD8-tracer uptake were performed in all patients.

“We saw rapid clearance with excretion through the hepatobiliary mechanism, uptake in T-cell rich tissues, and no uptake in background normal tissues – so no uptake in muscle, heart, brain, or lungs,” he said, adding that “tumor uptake was variable and was clearly seen in 10 out of 15 patients.

“The protein dose that was considered to have favorable biodistribution was the range between 0.5 and 1.5, and based upon the analysis, the most favorable imaging time point ... was deemed to be 24 hours,” he said, noting that changes could be seen in as early as 6 hours.

SOURCE: Gordon M et al., SITC 2018: Abstract LB49.

WASHINGTON – Combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab shows promising clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with confirmed, measurable, metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from a phase 1b/2 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Of note, the 21 patients enrolled in the multicenter, open-label study as of March 2018 were not preselected for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor expression status, Marcia S. Brose, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

They were treated with 20 mg of oral lenvatinib daily and 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and the overall response rate at 24 weeks – the primary endpoint of the study – was 33.3%, said Dr. Brose of Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

One patient had a complete response, six had a partial response, 10 had stable disease, two progressed on treatment, and the outcome in two was unknown or not evaluable, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 66%, she said, adding that the median duration of response was 10.9 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.9 months.

All patients had good performance status (ECOG score of 0-1), and nine (43%) were PD-L1–positive as defined by a tumor proportion score of at least 1%, five (24%) were PD-L1-negative, and seven (33%) were not tested for PD-L1 status. Three (14%) were treatment naive, while seven (33%), 10 (48%), and one (5%) had received one, two, or three or more prior lines of systemic therapy, respectively. No prior nivolumab or pembrolizumab treatment was allowed.

“At least one of the patients who was PD-L1–negative remained on study after 40 weeks and still continuing to respond, and ... the PD-L1–positive patients were also doing well,” Dr. Brose said.

Tumor assessments were performed by study investigators using immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST).

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10 patients (48%), and mainly included hypertension, fatigue, and diarrhea, but only four were considered serious treatment-related adverse events. Nineteen patients had treatment adjustments because of adverse events, four discontinued treatment due to adverse events, and one patient died from a pulmonary hemorrhage that was thought to possibly be treatment related, Dr. Brose said.

“The toxicity is really what you would have expected from either of these drugs on their own; it didn’t seem like there was anything that happened in synergy from the two that was unexpected,” she noted.

Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1-3, fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) 1-4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) alpha, and the RET and c-KIT proto-oncogenes. Pembrolizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody approved as a monotherapy for previously treated patients with metastatic PD-L1–positive NSCLC, and it has been shown to be associated with an overall response rate of 18%, she explained.

The current results are from the NSCLC cohort of an ongoing trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with solid tumors.

“Further investigation of this study drug combination in patients is warranted, but we will have to think carefully about what point in the treatment paradigm these patients should be treated in order to maximize the benefit from this combination therapy,” she concluded.

Dr. Brose has received consulting fees, research grants, and honorarium from Eisai.

SOURCE: Brose M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract P392.

WASHINGTON – Combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab shows promising clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with confirmed, measurable, metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from a phase 1b/2 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Of note, the 21 patients enrolled in the multicenter, open-label study as of March 2018 were not preselected for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor expression status, Marcia S. Brose, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

They were treated with 20 mg of oral lenvatinib daily and 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and the overall response rate at 24 weeks – the primary endpoint of the study – was 33.3%, said Dr. Brose of Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

One patient had a complete response, six had a partial response, 10 had stable disease, two progressed on treatment, and the outcome in two was unknown or not evaluable, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 66%, she said, adding that the median duration of response was 10.9 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.9 months.

All patients had good performance status (ECOG score of 0-1), and nine (43%) were PD-L1–positive as defined by a tumor proportion score of at least 1%, five (24%) were PD-L1-negative, and seven (33%) were not tested for PD-L1 status. Three (14%) were treatment naive, while seven (33%), 10 (48%), and one (5%) had received one, two, or three or more prior lines of systemic therapy, respectively. No prior nivolumab or pembrolizumab treatment was allowed.

“At least one of the patients who was PD-L1–negative remained on study after 40 weeks and still continuing to respond, and ... the PD-L1–positive patients were also doing well,” Dr. Brose said.

Tumor assessments were performed by study investigators using immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST).

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10 patients (48%), and mainly included hypertension, fatigue, and diarrhea, but only four were considered serious treatment-related adverse events. Nineteen patients had treatment adjustments because of adverse events, four discontinued treatment due to adverse events, and one patient died from a pulmonary hemorrhage that was thought to possibly be treatment related, Dr. Brose said.

“The toxicity is really what you would have expected from either of these drugs on their own; it didn’t seem like there was anything that happened in synergy from the two that was unexpected,” she noted.

Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1-3, fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) 1-4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) alpha, and the RET and c-KIT proto-oncogenes. Pembrolizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody approved as a monotherapy for previously treated patients with metastatic PD-L1–positive NSCLC, and it has been shown to be associated with an overall response rate of 18%, she explained.

The current results are from the NSCLC cohort of an ongoing trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with solid tumors.

“Further investigation of this study drug combination in patients is warranted, but we will have to think carefully about what point in the treatment paradigm these patients should be treated in order to maximize the benefit from this combination therapy,” she concluded.

Dr. Brose has received consulting fees, research grants, and honorarium from Eisai.

SOURCE: Brose M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract P392.

WASHINGTON – Combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab shows promising clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with confirmed, measurable, metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to interim findings from a phase 1b/2 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Of note, the 21 patients enrolled in the multicenter, open-label study as of March 2018 were not preselected for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor expression status, Marcia S. Brose, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

They were treated with 20 mg of oral lenvatinib daily and 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and the overall response rate at 24 weeks – the primary endpoint of the study – was 33.3%, said Dr. Brose of Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

One patient had a complete response, six had a partial response, 10 had stable disease, two progressed on treatment, and the outcome in two was unknown or not evaluable, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 66%, she said, adding that the median duration of response was 10.9 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.9 months.

All patients had good performance status (ECOG score of 0-1), and nine (43%) were PD-L1–positive as defined by a tumor proportion score of at least 1%, five (24%) were PD-L1-negative, and seven (33%) were not tested for PD-L1 status. Three (14%) were treatment naive, while seven (33%), 10 (48%), and one (5%) had received one, two, or three or more prior lines of systemic therapy, respectively. No prior nivolumab or pembrolizumab treatment was allowed.

“At least one of the patients who was PD-L1–negative remained on study after 40 weeks and still continuing to respond, and ... the PD-L1–positive patients were also doing well,” Dr. Brose said.

Tumor assessments were performed by study investigators using immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST).

Grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10 patients (48%), and mainly included hypertension, fatigue, and diarrhea, but only four were considered serious treatment-related adverse events. Nineteen patients had treatment adjustments because of adverse events, four discontinued treatment due to adverse events, and one patient died from a pulmonary hemorrhage that was thought to possibly be treatment related, Dr. Brose said.

“The toxicity is really what you would have expected from either of these drugs on their own; it didn’t seem like there was anything that happened in synergy from the two that was unexpected,” she noted.

Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1-3, fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) 1-4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) alpha, and the RET and c-KIT proto-oncogenes. Pembrolizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody approved as a monotherapy for previously treated patients with metastatic PD-L1–positive NSCLC, and it has been shown to be associated with an overall response rate of 18%, she explained.

The current results are from the NSCLC cohort of an ongoing trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with solid tumors.

“Further investigation of this study drug combination in patients is warranted, but we will have to think carefully about what point in the treatment paradigm these patients should be treated in order to maximize the benefit from this combination therapy,” she concluded.

Dr. Brose has received consulting fees, research grants, and honorarium from Eisai.

SOURCE: Brose M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract P392.

WASHINGTON – High tumor mutational burden and development of immune-related adverse events are markers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with small cell lung cancer, and targeted next-generation sequencing may help identify those likely to benefit from immunotherapy, findings from a case series suggest.

Of 113 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients who had successful next-generation sequencing (NGS) with tumor mutational burden (TMB) assessment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) in Boston, 52 were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and 61 received chemotherapy but never received subsequent immunotherapy, Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of DFCI said at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

Median TMB for all patients was 9.68 mutations/megabase, with those with TMB above the median considered TMB high, and those with TMB below the median considered TMB low. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among TMB-high versus TMB-low patients (3.3 vs. 1.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.37), as was median overall survival (OS, 10.4 vs. 2.5 months; HR, 0.38), he said.

“To confirm that TMB was a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy only, we also looked at the outcome with chemotherapy according to tumor mutational burden, and as expected we found no difference in terms of median progression-free survival or median overall survival according to TMB-high versus TMB-low groups,” he said.

Additionally, patients with SCLC who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and experienced at least one immune-related adverse event had significantly better median PFS and OS than did patients who experienced no immune-related adverse events (6.7 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.25; and 17.9 vs. 2.9 months; HR, 0.27, respectively), he said, noting that, in a 12-week landmark analysis, the differences in PFS and OS between the groups were “nearly double” but did not reach statistical significance.

TMB in the SCLC patients in this study was assessed using the DFCI NGS OncoPanel platform of more than 450 genes, and the TMB-high and TMB-low groups were similar with respect to baseline clinical and pathological features and known prognostic factors, Dr. Ricciuti said.

Prior studies have demonstrated that high TMB as assessed by whole exome sequencing correlates with benefits from immunotherapy. However, “whole exome sequencing is a very expensive technique, it’s challenging ... and it’s not really available to oncologists across countries,” he said.

Whether the more readily available targeted NGS could help identify the small fraction of SCLC patients who are likely to benefit from immunotherapy has been unclear, as has the relationship between the development of irAEs and immunotherapy response in SCLC; factors associated with clinical benefit from immunotherapy have not previously been well characterized, Dr. Ricciuti noted.

The current findings, though limited by the retrospective study design and small sample size, provide the first evidence for the use of targeted NGS panels to identify patients with advanced SCLC who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy, he said, adding that, when compared with whole genome sequencing, TMB as assessed using targeted NGS “may offer a very useful tool for clinicians to optimize small cell lung cancer patient selection for immunotherapy.

“Our study also suggests that immune-related adverse events might be associated with improved efficacy of immunotherapy, although larger studies with longer follow-up are required to confirm this finding,” he concluded.

Dr. Ricciuti reported having no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – High tumor mutational burden and development of immune-related adverse events are markers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with small cell lung cancer, and targeted next-generation sequencing may help identify those likely to benefit from immunotherapy, findings from a case series suggest.

Of 113 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients who had successful next-generation sequencing (NGS) with tumor mutational burden (TMB) assessment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) in Boston, 52 were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and 61 received chemotherapy but never received subsequent immunotherapy, Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of DFCI said at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

Median TMB for all patients was 9.68 mutations/megabase, with those with TMB above the median considered TMB high, and those with TMB below the median considered TMB low. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among TMB-high versus TMB-low patients (3.3 vs. 1.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.37), as was median overall survival (OS, 10.4 vs. 2.5 months; HR, 0.38), he said.

“To confirm that TMB was a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy only, we also looked at the outcome with chemotherapy according to tumor mutational burden, and as expected we found no difference in terms of median progression-free survival or median overall survival according to TMB-high versus TMB-low groups,” he said.

Additionally, patients with SCLC who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and experienced at least one immune-related adverse event had significantly better median PFS and OS than did patients who experienced no immune-related adverse events (6.7 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.25; and 17.9 vs. 2.9 months; HR, 0.27, respectively), he said, noting that, in a 12-week landmark analysis, the differences in PFS and OS between the groups were “nearly double” but did not reach statistical significance.

TMB in the SCLC patients in this study was assessed using the DFCI NGS OncoPanel platform of more than 450 genes, and the TMB-high and TMB-low groups were similar with respect to baseline clinical and pathological features and known prognostic factors, Dr. Ricciuti said.

Prior studies have demonstrated that high TMB as assessed by whole exome sequencing correlates with benefits from immunotherapy. However, “whole exome sequencing is a very expensive technique, it’s challenging ... and it’s not really available to oncologists across countries,” he said.

Whether the more readily available targeted NGS could help identify the small fraction of SCLC patients who are likely to benefit from immunotherapy has been unclear, as has the relationship between the development of irAEs and immunotherapy response in SCLC; factors associated with clinical benefit from immunotherapy have not previously been well characterized, Dr. Ricciuti noted.

The current findings, though limited by the retrospective study design and small sample size, provide the first evidence for the use of targeted NGS panels to identify patients with advanced SCLC who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy, he said, adding that, when compared with whole genome sequencing, TMB as assessed using targeted NGS “may offer a very useful tool for clinicians to optimize small cell lung cancer patient selection for immunotherapy.

“Our study also suggests that immune-related adverse events might be associated with improved efficacy of immunotherapy, although larger studies with longer follow-up are required to confirm this finding,” he concluded.

Dr. Ricciuti reported having no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – High tumor mutational burden and development of immune-related adverse events are markers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with small cell lung cancer, and targeted next-generation sequencing may help identify those likely to benefit from immunotherapy, findings from a case series suggest.

Of 113 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients who had successful next-generation sequencing (NGS) with tumor mutational burden (TMB) assessment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) in Boston, 52 were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and 61 received chemotherapy but never received subsequent immunotherapy, Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of DFCI said at the annual meeting of the Society for the Immunotherapy of Cancer.

Median TMB for all patients was 9.68 mutations/megabase, with those with TMB above the median considered TMB high, and those with TMB below the median considered TMB low. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among TMB-high versus TMB-low patients (3.3 vs. 1.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.37), as was median overall survival (OS, 10.4 vs. 2.5 months; HR, 0.38), he said.

“To confirm that TMB was a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy only, we also looked at the outcome with chemotherapy according to tumor mutational burden, and as expected we found no difference in terms of median progression-free survival or median overall survival according to TMB-high versus TMB-low groups,” he said.

Additionally, patients with SCLC who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and experienced at least one immune-related adverse event had significantly better median PFS and OS than did patients who experienced no immune-related adverse events (6.7 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.25; and 17.9 vs. 2.9 months; HR, 0.27, respectively), he said, noting that, in a 12-week landmark analysis, the differences in PFS and OS between the groups were “nearly double” but did not reach statistical significance.

TMB in the SCLC patients in this study was assessed using the DFCI NGS OncoPanel platform of more than 450 genes, and the TMB-high and TMB-low groups were similar with respect to baseline clinical and pathological features and known prognostic factors, Dr. Ricciuti said.

Prior studies have demonstrated that high TMB as assessed by whole exome sequencing correlates with benefits from immunotherapy. However, “whole exome sequencing is a very expensive technique, it’s challenging ... and it’s not really available to oncologists across countries,” he said.

Whether the more readily available targeted NGS could help identify the small fraction of SCLC patients who are likely to benefit from immunotherapy has been unclear, as has the relationship between the development of irAEs and immunotherapy response in SCLC; factors associated with clinical benefit from immunotherapy have not previously been well characterized, Dr. Ricciuti noted.

The current findings, though limited by the retrospective study design and small sample size, provide the first evidence for the use of targeted NGS panels to identify patients with advanced SCLC who are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy, he said, adding that, when compared with whole genome sequencing, TMB as assessed using targeted NGS “may offer a very useful tool for clinicians to optimize small cell lung cancer patient selection for immunotherapy.

“Our study also suggests that immune-related adverse events might be associated with improved efficacy of immunotherapy, although larger studies with longer follow-up are required to confirm this finding,” he concluded.

Dr. Ricciuti reported having no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Certain immune-related adverse events related to PD1/PD-L1 treatment of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may be more common than reported in clinical trials, a recent analysis of administrative claims data suggests.

Pneumonitis was seen in 10.9% of patients up to 60 days after the last dose of immunotherapy, according to the analysis of data from a large, U.S. commercial insurance database, presented at the Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium.

By comparison, pneumonitis was reported in just 5.8% of NSCLC patients during treatment with the PD-1 (programmed cell death-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-024, a pivotal randomized phase 3 clinical trial, said Elizabeth Jane Cathcart-Rake, MD, senior study author and an oncology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Rates of immune-related adverse events in this study were generally higher than in clinical trials, both for common side effects and more rare conditions such as hypophysitis, according to Dr. Cathcart-Rake.

These new claims-based data might be considered complementary to clinical trial data, the researcher said.

“Together, they may give us a better sense of the broader implications of these adverse events,” she said in an interview.

Joe Rotella, MD, a board member of the American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Care Medicine, said results of this insurance database study provide a perspective on the real-world incidence of adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

“We’ve only been using these therapies for a few years, so this new analysis gives us more information on the prevalence of these side effects in patients as the therapies gain wider use,” Dr. Rotella said in a news release.

In the study, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and coinvestigators queried the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to identify 3,164 patients with NSCLC who received PD-1 or PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) inhibitors between 2015 and 2017. They looked at incidence of adverse events both at the time of the last immunotherapy dose and at 60 days after the last dose.

The incidence of pneumonitis, just 4.9% on the last date of immunotherapy, increased to 10.9% at 60 days after the last dose, Dr. Cathcart-Rake reported.

Beyond pneumonitis, the most common immunotherapy-related toxicities at 60 days were hypothyroidism in 7.0%, arrhythmia in 6.1%, and nephritis or acute kidney injury in 5.4%, according to the investigators.

Dr. Cathcart-Rake also highlighted the incidence of some less common immunotherapy-related toxicities such as hypophysitis or hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis toxicity, seen in 2.8% of patients by 60 days.

“That’s a small number, but hypophysitis can be really profound, and frequently leads to hospitalization,” she said. “I think this just gives us enough of a signal that providers really need to be on top of looking for these adverse events and to counsel patients beforehand.”

These data could also be helpful for advising hospitalists, emergency room physicians, and other providers who may not be attuned to the potential risks of cancer immunotherapy as compared with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy, Dr. Cathcart-Rake said at the meeting cosponsored by AAHPM, ASCO, ASTRO, and MASCC.

“A patient with cancer may be on immunotherapy and their risk for infection is quite low, but they may be at a huge risk for pneumonitis, which is treated completely differently,” she said. “So I think this should just raise alarms that close clinical monitoring for these conditions is really important.”

Dr. Cathcart-Rake disclosed that her institution receives research funding from Novartis. One study coinvestigator reported consulting or advisory roles with Trovagene, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbvie.

SOURCE: Cathcart-Rake EJ et al. 2018 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium. Abstract 184.

SAN DIEGO – Certain immune-related adverse events related to PD1/PD-L1 treatment of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may be more common than reported in clinical trials, a recent analysis of administrative claims data suggests.

Pneumonitis was seen in 10.9% of patients up to 60 days after the last dose of immunotherapy, according to the analysis of data from a large, U.S. commercial insurance database, presented at the Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium.

By comparison, pneumonitis was reported in just 5.8% of NSCLC patients during treatment with the PD-1 (programmed cell death-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-024, a pivotal randomized phase 3 clinical trial, said Elizabeth Jane Cathcart-Rake, MD, senior study author and an oncology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Rates of immune-related adverse events in this study were generally higher than in clinical trials, both for common side effects and more rare conditions such as hypophysitis, according to Dr. Cathcart-Rake.

These new claims-based data might be considered complementary to clinical trial data, the researcher said.

“Together, they may give us a better sense of the broader implications of these adverse events,” she said in an interview.

Joe Rotella, MD, a board member of the American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Care Medicine, said results of this insurance database study provide a perspective on the real-world incidence of adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

“We’ve only been using these therapies for a few years, so this new analysis gives us more information on the prevalence of these side effects in patients as the therapies gain wider use,” Dr. Rotella said in a news release.

In the study, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and coinvestigators queried the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to identify 3,164 patients with NSCLC who received PD-1 or PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) inhibitors between 2015 and 2017. They looked at incidence of adverse events both at the time of the last immunotherapy dose and at 60 days after the last dose.

The incidence of pneumonitis, just 4.9% on the last date of immunotherapy, increased to 10.9% at 60 days after the last dose, Dr. Cathcart-Rake reported.

Beyond pneumonitis, the most common immunotherapy-related toxicities at 60 days were hypothyroidism in 7.0%, arrhythmia in 6.1%, and nephritis or acute kidney injury in 5.4%, according to the investigators.

Dr. Cathcart-Rake also highlighted the incidence of some less common immunotherapy-related toxicities such as hypophysitis or hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis toxicity, seen in 2.8% of patients by 60 days.

“That’s a small number, but hypophysitis can be really profound, and frequently leads to hospitalization,” she said. “I think this just gives us enough of a signal that providers really need to be on top of looking for these adverse events and to counsel patients beforehand.”

These data could also be helpful for advising hospitalists, emergency room physicians, and other providers who may not be attuned to the potential risks of cancer immunotherapy as compared with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy, Dr. Cathcart-Rake said at the meeting cosponsored by AAHPM, ASCO, ASTRO, and MASCC.

“A patient with cancer may be on immunotherapy and their risk for infection is quite low, but they may be at a huge risk for pneumonitis, which is treated completely differently,” she said. “So I think this should just raise alarms that close clinical monitoring for these conditions is really important.”

Dr. Cathcart-Rake disclosed that her institution receives research funding from Novartis. One study coinvestigator reported consulting or advisory roles with Trovagene, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbvie.

SOURCE: Cathcart-Rake EJ et al. 2018 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium. Abstract 184.

SAN DIEGO – Certain immune-related adverse events related to PD1/PD-L1 treatment of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may be more common than reported in clinical trials, a recent analysis of administrative claims data suggests.

Pneumonitis was seen in 10.9% of patients up to 60 days after the last dose of immunotherapy, according to the analysis of data from a large, U.S. commercial insurance database, presented at the Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium.

By comparison, pneumonitis was reported in just 5.8% of NSCLC patients during treatment with the PD-1 (programmed cell death-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-024, a pivotal randomized phase 3 clinical trial, said Elizabeth Jane Cathcart-Rake, MD, senior study author and an oncology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Rates of immune-related adverse events in this study were generally higher than in clinical trials, both for common side effects and more rare conditions such as hypophysitis, according to Dr. Cathcart-Rake.

These new claims-based data might be considered complementary to clinical trial data, the researcher said.

“Together, they may give us a better sense of the broader implications of these adverse events,” she said in an interview.

Joe Rotella, MD, a board member of the American Academy for Hospice and Palliative Care Medicine, said results of this insurance database study provide a perspective on the real-world incidence of adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

“We’ve only been using these therapies for a few years, so this new analysis gives us more information on the prevalence of these side effects in patients as the therapies gain wider use,” Dr. Rotella said in a news release.

In the study, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and coinvestigators queried the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to identify 3,164 patients with NSCLC who received PD-1 or PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) inhibitors between 2015 and 2017. They looked at incidence of adverse events both at the time of the last immunotherapy dose and at 60 days after the last dose.

The incidence of pneumonitis, just 4.9% on the last date of immunotherapy, increased to 10.9% at 60 days after the last dose, Dr. Cathcart-Rake reported.

Beyond pneumonitis, the most common immunotherapy-related toxicities at 60 days were hypothyroidism in 7.0%, arrhythmia in 6.1%, and nephritis or acute kidney injury in 5.4%, according to the investigators.

Dr. Cathcart-Rake also highlighted the incidence of some less common immunotherapy-related toxicities such as hypophysitis or hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis toxicity, seen in 2.8% of patients by 60 days.

“That’s a small number, but hypophysitis can be really profound, and frequently leads to hospitalization,” she said. “I think this just gives us enough of a signal that providers really need to be on top of looking for these adverse events and to counsel patients beforehand.”

These data could also be helpful for advising hospitalists, emergency room physicians, and other providers who may not be attuned to the potential risks of cancer immunotherapy as compared with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy, Dr. Cathcart-Rake said at the meeting cosponsored by AAHPM, ASCO, ASTRO, and MASCC.

“A patient with cancer may be on immunotherapy and their risk for infection is quite low, but they may be at a huge risk for pneumonitis, which is treated completely differently,” she said. “So I think this should just raise alarms that close clinical monitoring for these conditions is really important.”

Dr. Cathcart-Rake disclosed that her institution receives research funding from Novartis. One study coinvestigator reported consulting or advisory roles with Trovagene, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbvie.

SOURCE: Cathcart-Rake EJ et al. 2018 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium. Abstract 184.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Combined treatment with mocetinostat and durvalumab shows clinical activity with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) – including patients who progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CIT), according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 trial.

Of 29 evaluable patients who progressed on prior checkpoint blockade, 12 had “some degree of tumor regression” and 5 achieved a confirmed partial response, Manish Patel, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

“Some of these responses were quite durable. The longest response ... was a little over 1 year,” said Dr. Patel, of the University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis.

Several patients continue to show objective responses, and the initial estimate of response duration is a median of more than 5 months, he added.


Of note, no differences have been seen to date with respect to clinical benefit in patients who did and did not have prior clinical benefit on checkpoint blockade, Dr. Patel said.

Overall, the combination was very well tolerated. The most common adverse events were fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea, with more than 10% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher fatigue.

“Otherwise the toxicities were relatively minor,” he said, noting, however, that 8% of patients had cardiac events during the study, including atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, and a few cases of pericardial tamponade.

Such effects have been described in prior mocetinostat monotherapy trials, and all patients in the current study underwent pretreatment echocardiograms and did not have evidence of pericardial effusion at the start.

“So I think this is likely to be related to mocetinostat,” Dr. Patel said.

Mocetinostat is a spectrum-selective class I and class IV histone deacetylase inhibitor with multiple potential immunomodulatory features.

For example, the agent induces major histocompatibility complex Class I and Class II expression on tumor cells, enhances the function of T effector cells, and decreases the function of immunosuppressive cell subsets, including regulatory T cells and myeloid derived suppressor cells, Dr. Patel noted.

“It was hypothesized that because of these pleiotropic immune-supportive effects, that the combination of mocetinostat and checkpoint blockade might be a successful strategy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

In phase 1, doses of 50 mg, 70 mg, or 90 mg given three times weekly in combination with 1,500 mg of durvalumab were studied in patients with advanced solid tumors. Based on the safety data from that phase of the study, the recommended phase 2 dose of mocetinostat was 70 mg three times weekly with 1,500 mg of durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle.

Study subjects were patients with mNSCLC who had received at least one platinum-based doublet and whose most recent treatment prior to enrollment was with a checkpoint inhibitor, or who were immunotherapy naive.

The findings show promising clinical efficacy and safety, and enrollment in the study, which began in June 2016, is currently ongoing in the United States, he said.

Dr. Patel is an advisory board member for Nektar Therapeutics and has received research funding from Merck.

SOURCE: Patel M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 027.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Combined treatment with mocetinostat and durvalumab shows clinical activity with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) – including patients who progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CIT), according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 trial.

Of 29 evaluable patients who progressed on prior checkpoint blockade, 12 had “some degree of tumor regression” and 5 achieved a confirmed partial response, Manish Patel, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

“Some of these responses were quite durable. The longest response ... was a little over 1 year,” said Dr. Patel, of the University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis.

Several patients continue to show objective responses, and the initial estimate of response duration is a median of more than 5 months, he added.


Of note, no differences have been seen to date with respect to clinical benefit in patients who did and did not have prior clinical benefit on checkpoint blockade, Dr. Patel said.

Overall, the combination was very well tolerated. The most common adverse events were fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea, with more than 10% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher fatigue.

“Otherwise the toxicities were relatively minor,” he said, noting, however, that 8% of patients had cardiac events during the study, including atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, and a few cases of pericardial tamponade.

Such effects have been described in prior mocetinostat monotherapy trials, and all patients in the current study underwent pretreatment echocardiograms and did not have evidence of pericardial effusion at the start.

“So I think this is likely to be related to mocetinostat,” Dr. Patel said.

Mocetinostat is a spectrum-selective class I and class IV histone deacetylase inhibitor with multiple potential immunomodulatory features.

For example, the agent induces major histocompatibility complex Class I and Class II expression on tumor cells, enhances the function of T effector cells, and decreases the function of immunosuppressive cell subsets, including regulatory T cells and myeloid derived suppressor cells, Dr. Patel noted.

“It was hypothesized that because of these pleiotropic immune-supportive effects, that the combination of mocetinostat and checkpoint blockade might be a successful strategy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

In phase 1, doses of 50 mg, 70 mg, or 90 mg given three times weekly in combination with 1,500 mg of durvalumab were studied in patients with advanced solid tumors. Based on the safety data from that phase of the study, the recommended phase 2 dose of mocetinostat was 70 mg three times weekly with 1,500 mg of durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle.

Study subjects were patients with mNSCLC who had received at least one platinum-based doublet and whose most recent treatment prior to enrollment was with a checkpoint inhibitor, or who were immunotherapy naive.

The findings show promising clinical efficacy and safety, and enrollment in the study, which began in June 2016, is currently ongoing in the United States, he said.

Dr. Patel is an advisory board member for Nektar Therapeutics and has received research funding from Merck.

SOURCE: Patel M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 027.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Combined treatment with mocetinostat and durvalumab shows clinical activity with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) – including patients who progressed on prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CIT), according to preliminary findings from a phase 2 trial.

Of 29 evaluable patients who progressed on prior checkpoint blockade, 12 had “some degree of tumor regression” and 5 achieved a confirmed partial response, Manish Patel, DO, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

“Some of these responses were quite durable. The longest response ... was a little over 1 year,” said Dr. Patel, of the University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis.

Several patients continue to show objective responses, and the initial estimate of response duration is a median of more than 5 months, he added.


Of note, no differences have been seen to date with respect to clinical benefit in patients who did and did not have prior clinical benefit on checkpoint blockade, Dr. Patel said.

Overall, the combination was very well tolerated. The most common adverse events were fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea, with more than 10% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher fatigue.

“Otherwise the toxicities were relatively minor,” he said, noting, however, that 8% of patients had cardiac events during the study, including atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, and a few cases of pericardial tamponade.

Such effects have been described in prior mocetinostat monotherapy trials, and all patients in the current study underwent pretreatment echocardiograms and did not have evidence of pericardial effusion at the start.

“So I think this is likely to be related to mocetinostat,” Dr. Patel said.

Mocetinostat is a spectrum-selective class I and class IV histone deacetylase inhibitor with multiple potential immunomodulatory features.

For example, the agent induces major histocompatibility complex Class I and Class II expression on tumor cells, enhances the function of T effector cells, and decreases the function of immunosuppressive cell subsets, including regulatory T cells and myeloid derived suppressor cells, Dr. Patel noted.

“It was hypothesized that because of these pleiotropic immune-supportive effects, that the combination of mocetinostat and checkpoint blockade might be a successful strategy for patients with non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

In phase 1, doses of 50 mg, 70 mg, or 90 mg given three times weekly in combination with 1,500 mg of durvalumab were studied in patients with advanced solid tumors. Based on the safety data from that phase of the study, the recommended phase 2 dose of mocetinostat was 70 mg three times weekly with 1,500 mg of durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle.

Study subjects were patients with mNSCLC who had received at least one platinum-based doublet and whose most recent treatment prior to enrollment was with a checkpoint inhibitor, or who were immunotherapy naive.

The findings show promising clinical efficacy and safety, and enrollment in the study, which began in June 2016, is currently ongoing in the United States, he said.

Dr. Patel is an advisory board member for Nektar Therapeutics and has received research funding from Merck.

SOURCE: Patel M et al. SITC 2018, Abstract 027.