Mixed Topics

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

TOPLINE: 

Despite the risk of worsening acne with progestin-only long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in a study of adolescents and young adults, acne alone was not a common reason for discontinuation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Progestin-only LARC may increase the risk for acne, but this has not been well studied in adolescents and young adults.
• In the study, researchers evaluated the incidence of acne, acne as a reason for removal, and strategies used to manage acne after insertion of a progestin-only intrauterine device (IUD) or contraceptive implant in 1319 adolescents and young adults across four Adolescent Medicine LARC Collaborative study sites from January 2017 to June 2021.The mean age at insertion was 18.6 years.
• Overall, 24% of participants had acne at the time of LARC insertion.
• Worsening acne was defined as new patient reports of concern about acne, observations of acne, or addition of an acne medication after insertion; increased severity noted on an exam during follow-up or at the time of LARC removal; or acne reported as a side effect and/or reason for LARC removal.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 376 participants (28.5%) experienced worsening acne after LARC insertion, and 17% reported acne as a new concern, with no differences between those who received an IUD or an implant.
• Only 44 of the 376 participants (11.7%) who reported worsening acne were being treated with an oral agent at follow-up.
• Of the 542 individuals (41% of the total) who had the LARC device removed, 40 (7.4%) cited concerns about acne for removing the device, although just 5 (0.92%) said that acne was the only reason for removal. Of the 40 with concerns about acne when the device was removed, 18 (45%) had documented acne at the time of insertion.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors recommend that clinicians prescribing progestin-only LARC should counsel patients that acne may be a side effect, reassuring them that if they develop acne, “it typically is not problematic enough to warrant discontinuation,” and concluded that “concerns about the development or worsening of acne should not be cause to avoid these forms of contraception.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Individuals without documented acne were assumed to be acne-free, creating potential bias. Acne evaluation and treatment were not standardized and were not performed by dermatologists; acne severity was not recorded for many participants, possibly underestimating severity, and excluding LARC insertions without follow-up or with removal within 8 weeks may have underestimated the percentage of participants who developed new or worsening acne.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported by Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon and by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Many authors received grants for this work. The authors did not disclose any other competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite the risk of worsening acne with progestin-only long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in a study of adolescents and young adults, acne alone was not a common reason for discontinuation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Progestin-only LARC may increase the risk for acne, but this has not been well studied in adolescents and young adults.
• In the study, researchers evaluated the incidence of acne, acne as a reason for removal, and strategies used to manage acne after insertion of a progestin-only intrauterine device (IUD) or contraceptive implant in 1319 adolescents and young adults across four Adolescent Medicine LARC Collaborative study sites from January 2017 to June 2021.The mean age at insertion was 18.6 years.
• Overall, 24% of participants had acne at the time of LARC insertion.
• Worsening acne was defined as new patient reports of concern about acne, observations of acne, or addition of an acne medication after insertion; increased severity noted on an exam during follow-up or at the time of LARC removal; or acne reported as a side effect and/or reason for LARC removal.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 376 participants (28.5%) experienced worsening acne after LARC insertion, and 17% reported acne as a new concern, with no differences between those who received an IUD or an implant.
• Only 44 of the 376 participants (11.7%) who reported worsening acne were being treated with an oral agent at follow-up.
• Of the 542 individuals (41% of the total) who had the LARC device removed, 40 (7.4%) cited concerns about acne for removing the device, although just 5 (0.92%) said that acne was the only reason for removal. Of the 40 with concerns about acne when the device was removed, 18 (45%) had documented acne at the time of insertion.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors recommend that clinicians prescribing progestin-only LARC should counsel patients that acne may be a side effect, reassuring them that if they develop acne, “it typically is not problematic enough to warrant discontinuation,” and concluded that “concerns about the development or worsening of acne should not be cause to avoid these forms of contraception.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Individuals without documented acne were assumed to be acne-free, creating potential bias. Acne evaluation and treatment were not standardized and were not performed by dermatologists; acne severity was not recorded for many participants, possibly underestimating severity, and excluding LARC insertions without follow-up or with removal within 8 weeks may have underestimated the percentage of participants who developed new or worsening acne.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported by Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon and by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Many authors received grants for this work. The authors did not disclose any other competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Despite the risk of worsening acne with progestin-only long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in a study of adolescents and young adults, acne alone was not a common reason for discontinuation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Progestin-only LARC may increase the risk for acne, but this has not been well studied in adolescents and young adults.
• In the study, researchers evaluated the incidence of acne, acne as a reason for removal, and strategies used to manage acne after insertion of a progestin-only intrauterine device (IUD) or contraceptive implant in 1319 adolescents and young adults across four Adolescent Medicine LARC Collaborative study sites from January 2017 to June 2021.The mean age at insertion was 18.6 years.
• Overall, 24% of participants had acne at the time of LARC insertion.
• Worsening acne was defined as new patient reports of concern about acne, observations of acne, or addition of an acne medication after insertion; increased severity noted on an exam during follow-up or at the time of LARC removal; or acne reported as a side effect and/or reason for LARC removal.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 376 participants (28.5%) experienced worsening acne after LARC insertion, and 17% reported acne as a new concern, with no differences between those who received an IUD or an implant.
• Only 44 of the 376 participants (11.7%) who reported worsening acne were being treated with an oral agent at follow-up.
• Of the 542 individuals (41% of the total) who had the LARC device removed, 40 (7.4%) cited concerns about acne for removing the device, although just 5 (0.92%) said that acne was the only reason for removal. Of the 40 with concerns about acne when the device was removed, 18 (45%) had documented acne at the time of insertion.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors recommend that clinicians prescribing progestin-only LARC should counsel patients that acne may be a side effect, reassuring them that if they develop acne, “it typically is not problematic enough to warrant discontinuation,” and concluded that “concerns about the development or worsening of acne should not be cause to avoid these forms of contraception.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD, of the division of dermatology in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Individuals without documented acne were assumed to be acne-free, creating potential bias. Acne evaluation and treatment were not standardized and were not performed by dermatologists; acne severity was not recorded for many participants, possibly underestimating severity, and excluding LARC insertions without follow-up or with removal within 8 weeks may have underestimated the percentage of participants who developed new or worsening acne.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported by Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon and by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Many authors received grants for this work. The authors did not disclose any other competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Secondary cancers were flagged in 4.3% of all adverse event reports among patients who received CAR T therapy, with T-cell malignancies comprising only 0.15% of the total reports and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies, according to an analysis of adverse event reports submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
• In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
• To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
• Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
• The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
• Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).

IN PRACTICE:

“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Secondary cancers were flagged in 4.3% of all adverse event reports among patients who received CAR T therapy, with T-cell malignancies comprising only 0.15% of the total reports and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies, according to an analysis of adverse event reports submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
• In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
• To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
• Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
• The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
• Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).

IN PRACTICE:

“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Secondary cancers were flagged in 4.3% of all adverse event reports among patients who received CAR T therapy, with T-cell malignancies comprising only 0.15% of the total reports and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies, according to an analysis of adverse event reports submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In November 2023, the FDA announced its investigation into whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers, specifically T-cell malignancies. At the time, the agency said: “Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes.”
• In January 2024, the FDA issued boxed warnings on the six approved CART cell therapies, citing the possibility of second primary malignancies, including CAR-positive lymphomas, in patients who had received a CAR T agent.
• To evaluate the extent of these secondary cancers, researchers analyzed the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database for CAR T-cell reports citing second primary malignancies.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the authors identified 12,394 unique adverse events associated with CAR T therapy; of these, 536 adverse events (4.3%) were second primary malignancies.
• Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel) accounted for most of the second primary malignancies reports — 51.7% (277 of 536 patients) for axi-cel and 33% (177 of 536 patients) for tis-cel.
• The researchers identified 19 cases of T-cell malignancies, representing only 0.15% of all unique adverse events and 3.54% of all second primary malignancies (19 of 536 patients); 17 of these cases were T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and two were T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia.
• Among the reported 536 second primary malignancies, the most frequent cancers were leukemias (333 reports, or 62%), followed by skin neoplasms (54 reports, or 10.1%), hematopoietic neoplasms excluding leukemias and lymphomas (26 reports, 4.85%), nervous system tumors (21 reports, 3.92%), and respiratory neoplasms (20 reports, 3.73%).

IN PRACTICE:

“We will continue to monitor the data released by the FDA to learn more about CAR T-associated risks. However, it’s crucial to stress that the benefits of CAR T-cell therapies still outweigh the risks for the approved indications,” Magdi Elsallab, MD, the study’s co-lead author, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Dr. Elsallab from Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published online on March 14 in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations of the analysis include the presence of duplicate report submissions, incomplete data, difficulty establishing causal relationships, and the potential for both underreporting and overreporting based on the severity of adverse events. Furthermore, without the total number of prescribed products, it was difficult to determine the adverse event frequency.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. Some of the authors reported financial ties with various organizations outside this work, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Kite Pharma, and Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Mio Nakamura, MD, MS, providing dermatologic care to patients with personality disorders requires a certain level of flexibility and adaptability. 

“You want to recognize the personality disorder, understand that there are underlying conflicts and needs, and adjust accordingly,” Dr. Nakamura, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Dr. Nakamura

Personality disorders, which she defined as enduring patterns of maladaptive thinking and behavior that deviate from the cultural norm, affect up to 15% of the general population and can be difficult “if not impossible to treat, which can be frustrating.” She shared her approach to providing dermatologic care for individuals with these three conditions: 

Borderline personality disorder (BPD). This condition is marked by instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and emotions. Affected individuals are usually impulsive and often demonstrate self-injurious conduct such as risky sexual behaviors, cutting, or suicide attempts. “They often express feelings of emptiness, a fear of abandonment, and they are labile and sensitive to environmental circumstances,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be needy and display inappropriate, intense anger.”

In her clinical experience, a patient’s presenting dermatologic complaint is often a “screen” to hide a real, inner psychological problem, “a need to fill the emptiness,” she explained. “They’re kind of lonely, and there is a fear of abandonment. Rejection is frequently perceived as abandonment, creating intense anger and other negative emotions such as splitting.”

She advises against providing tests, treatments, or procedures for individuals with BPD that are not clinically indicated. “If the test is negative, such patients may ask for further testing,” she said. “Especially for cosmetic procedures, the patient may be more dissatisfied with the outcome of a procedure compared to before. Don’t let the patient’s emotions cloud your judgment. Trying to reason with the patient is often ineffective.”

To avoid saying “no” to such patients, Dr. Nakamura recommended discussing other treatment options so that they don’t feel abandoned. “Show that you care,” she said. “Meet the patient’s emotional needs, which may be the real agenda, and schedule regular follow-ups.”

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD). This condition is characterized by a preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and control. “OCPD individuals are excessively concerned with details, rules, and organization to the extent that the major point of the activity is often lost,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be over-conscientious with excessive regard for morality and ethics.”

Such patients often fear losing control, she continued, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and sometimes anger. During office visits with patients with OCPD, she recommends that dermatologists “focus on facts and knowledge to replace or subdue emotions. Knowledge and information give a sense of control over illness.” Her approach involves professional, structured encounters that include detailed explanations and plans. “Provide step-by-step written instructions and give specific reasons for the prescribed treatment,” Dr. Nakamura advised. “Schedule regular follow-up appointments.”

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). This condition is characterized by a grandiose sense of self-importance, in which the person believes that they are special, unique, and superior to others. These individuals have a sense of entitlement, fantasize about unlimited success or power, display a lack of empathy toward others, and show a constant need for admiration. “The patient’s personality traits are often a ‘screen’ to hide a real, inner psychological problem such as unrecognized low self-esteem or insecurity,” Dr. Nakamura said. “These patients need praise and a sense of power.”

To provide patients with NPD with “a sense of uniqueness,” she recommended engaging with them at a medical level as one might with a work colleague. “Such patients often respond better to respect and concern rather than warmth and caring,” she said. Asking them to make decisions about their care can also give them a sense of power: asking them, for example, about which type of topical steroid they might prefer from those in the same class, whether they prefer creams or ointments, and that they can choose to follow up in 4 weeks or 6 weeks. 

“Do not let the patient dictate the encounter [or] get under your skin,” Dr. Nakamura emphasized. “Be careful about rejecting the patient from your practice. Even though that is perfectly within your rights, it could lead to ‘narcissistic injury’ where the patient becomes very angry and wants to get back at you.”

Dr. Nakamura disclosed that she is an investigator for Amgen, argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Regeneron. She is also a member of the advisory board for argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Mio Nakamura, MD, MS, providing dermatologic care to patients with personality disorders requires a certain level of flexibility and adaptability. 

“You want to recognize the personality disorder, understand that there are underlying conflicts and needs, and adjust accordingly,” Dr. Nakamura, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Dr. Nakamura

Personality disorders, which she defined as enduring patterns of maladaptive thinking and behavior that deviate from the cultural norm, affect up to 15% of the general population and can be difficult “if not impossible to treat, which can be frustrating.” She shared her approach to providing dermatologic care for individuals with these three conditions: 

Borderline personality disorder (BPD). This condition is marked by instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and emotions. Affected individuals are usually impulsive and often demonstrate self-injurious conduct such as risky sexual behaviors, cutting, or suicide attempts. “They often express feelings of emptiness, a fear of abandonment, and they are labile and sensitive to environmental circumstances,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be needy and display inappropriate, intense anger.”

In her clinical experience, a patient’s presenting dermatologic complaint is often a “screen” to hide a real, inner psychological problem, “a need to fill the emptiness,” she explained. “They’re kind of lonely, and there is a fear of abandonment. Rejection is frequently perceived as abandonment, creating intense anger and other negative emotions such as splitting.”

She advises against providing tests, treatments, or procedures for individuals with BPD that are not clinically indicated. “If the test is negative, such patients may ask for further testing,” she said. “Especially for cosmetic procedures, the patient may be more dissatisfied with the outcome of a procedure compared to before. Don’t let the patient’s emotions cloud your judgment. Trying to reason with the patient is often ineffective.”

To avoid saying “no” to such patients, Dr. Nakamura recommended discussing other treatment options so that they don’t feel abandoned. “Show that you care,” she said. “Meet the patient’s emotional needs, which may be the real agenda, and schedule regular follow-ups.”

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD). This condition is characterized by a preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and control. “OCPD individuals are excessively concerned with details, rules, and organization to the extent that the major point of the activity is often lost,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be over-conscientious with excessive regard for morality and ethics.”

Such patients often fear losing control, she continued, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and sometimes anger. During office visits with patients with OCPD, she recommends that dermatologists “focus on facts and knowledge to replace or subdue emotions. Knowledge and information give a sense of control over illness.” Her approach involves professional, structured encounters that include detailed explanations and plans. “Provide step-by-step written instructions and give specific reasons for the prescribed treatment,” Dr. Nakamura advised. “Schedule regular follow-up appointments.”

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). This condition is characterized by a grandiose sense of self-importance, in which the person believes that they are special, unique, and superior to others. These individuals have a sense of entitlement, fantasize about unlimited success or power, display a lack of empathy toward others, and show a constant need for admiration. “The patient’s personality traits are often a ‘screen’ to hide a real, inner psychological problem such as unrecognized low self-esteem or insecurity,” Dr. Nakamura said. “These patients need praise and a sense of power.”

To provide patients with NPD with “a sense of uniqueness,” she recommended engaging with them at a medical level as one might with a work colleague. “Such patients often respond better to respect and concern rather than warmth and caring,” she said. Asking them to make decisions about their care can also give them a sense of power: asking them, for example, about which type of topical steroid they might prefer from those in the same class, whether they prefer creams or ointments, and that they can choose to follow up in 4 weeks or 6 weeks. 

“Do not let the patient dictate the encounter [or] get under your skin,” Dr. Nakamura emphasized. “Be careful about rejecting the patient from your practice. Even though that is perfectly within your rights, it could lead to ‘narcissistic injury’ where the patient becomes very angry and wants to get back at you.”

Dr. Nakamura disclosed that she is an investigator for Amgen, argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Regeneron. She is also a member of the advisory board for argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Mio Nakamura, MD, MS, providing dermatologic care to patients with personality disorders requires a certain level of flexibility and adaptability. 

“You want to recognize the personality disorder, understand that there are underlying conflicts and needs, and adjust accordingly,” Dr. Nakamura, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Dr. Nakamura

Personality disorders, which she defined as enduring patterns of maladaptive thinking and behavior that deviate from the cultural norm, affect up to 15% of the general population and can be difficult “if not impossible to treat, which can be frustrating.” She shared her approach to providing dermatologic care for individuals with these three conditions: 

Borderline personality disorder (BPD). This condition is marked by instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and emotions. Affected individuals are usually impulsive and often demonstrate self-injurious conduct such as risky sexual behaviors, cutting, or suicide attempts. “They often express feelings of emptiness, a fear of abandonment, and they are labile and sensitive to environmental circumstances,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be needy and display inappropriate, intense anger.”

In her clinical experience, a patient’s presenting dermatologic complaint is often a “screen” to hide a real, inner psychological problem, “a need to fill the emptiness,” she explained. “They’re kind of lonely, and there is a fear of abandonment. Rejection is frequently perceived as abandonment, creating intense anger and other negative emotions such as splitting.”

She advises against providing tests, treatments, or procedures for individuals with BPD that are not clinically indicated. “If the test is negative, such patients may ask for further testing,” she said. “Especially for cosmetic procedures, the patient may be more dissatisfied with the outcome of a procedure compared to before. Don’t let the patient’s emotions cloud your judgment. Trying to reason with the patient is often ineffective.”

To avoid saying “no” to such patients, Dr. Nakamura recommended discussing other treatment options so that they don’t feel abandoned. “Show that you care,” she said. “Meet the patient’s emotional needs, which may be the real agenda, and schedule regular follow-ups.”

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD). This condition is characterized by a preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and control. “OCPD individuals are excessively concerned with details, rules, and organization to the extent that the major point of the activity is often lost,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be over-conscientious with excessive regard for morality and ethics.”

Such patients often fear losing control, she continued, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and sometimes anger. During office visits with patients with OCPD, she recommends that dermatologists “focus on facts and knowledge to replace or subdue emotions. Knowledge and information give a sense of control over illness.” Her approach involves professional, structured encounters that include detailed explanations and plans. “Provide step-by-step written instructions and give specific reasons for the prescribed treatment,” Dr. Nakamura advised. “Schedule regular follow-up appointments.”

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). This condition is characterized by a grandiose sense of self-importance, in which the person believes that they are special, unique, and superior to others. These individuals have a sense of entitlement, fantasize about unlimited success or power, display a lack of empathy toward others, and show a constant need for admiration. “The patient’s personality traits are often a ‘screen’ to hide a real, inner psychological problem such as unrecognized low self-esteem or insecurity,” Dr. Nakamura said. “These patients need praise and a sense of power.”

To provide patients with NPD with “a sense of uniqueness,” she recommended engaging with them at a medical level as one might with a work colleague. “Such patients often respond better to respect and concern rather than warmth and caring,” she said. Asking them to make decisions about their care can also give them a sense of power: asking them, for example, about which type of topical steroid they might prefer from those in the same class, whether they prefer creams or ointments, and that they can choose to follow up in 4 weeks or 6 weeks. 

“Do not let the patient dictate the encounter [or] get under your skin,” Dr. Nakamura emphasized. “Be careful about rejecting the patient from your practice. Even though that is perfectly within your rights, it could lead to ‘narcissistic injury’ where the patient becomes very angry and wants to get back at you.”

Dr. Nakamura disclosed that she is an investigator for Amgen, argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Regeneron. She is also a member of the advisory board for argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Targeted treatments, including antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapy agents, are now standard of care for breast cancer, but there are limited data on the safety of combining these newer agents alongside radiotherapy.

One reason is studies of new drugs typically exclude concurrent radiotherapy, said Kathy Miller, MD, a contributor to this news organization and professor of oncology and medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

If trials evaluating new targeted therapies included concurrent radiotherapy, it would be challenging to identify whether toxicities came from the drug itself, the radiation, or the combination, Dr. Miller explained.

Given the limited evidence, “we tend to be cautious and conservative” and not combine therapies that “we don’t know are safe or appropriate for patients,” said Chirag Shah, MD, director of breast radiology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Below is a guide to what we do and don’t know about combining radiotherapy and systemic treatments in breast cancer.

1. Immunotherapy plus radiotherapy likely safe but evidence is limited

Safety data on combining immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy in breast cancer are limited because concurrent radiotherapy has typically been excluded in pivotal trials.

The 2020 KEYNOTE-522 trial did provide a rare look at concurrent radiotherapy and immunotherapy in early triple-negative breast cancer. The analysis found “no safety concerns” with concurrent radiotherapy and pembrolizumab, lead investigator Peter Schmid, MD, of Queen Mary University of London, England, told this news organization.

Research on other solid tumor types also suggests that radiotherapy “can be considered safe” alongside immunotherapy, the authors of a recent ESTRO consensus said.

Despite evidence indicating radiotherapy alongside immunotherapy can be safe in patients with breast cancer, “certain aspects, such as patient selection, total dose, and dose per fraction, remain open for debate to achieve the best therapeutic outcomes,” the ESTRO experts cautioned.

2. CDK4/6 inhibitors may be offered with radiotherapy in some settings, not others

CDK4/6 inhibitors are now standard of care for first- or second-line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer.

“Unfortunately, we found no information regarding concurrent radiotherapy in the adjuvant setting” in pivotal trials for palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib, the ESTRO authors said. In the pivotal trials for palbociclib and abemaciclib, patients had to discontinue immunotherapy before initiating radiotherapy, and in the trial for ribociclib, palliative radiotherapy was allowed for relieving bone pain only.

However, in 2023, a team of experts from 12 countries attempted to piece together the available evidence, publishing a meta-analysis of 11 retrospective studies on the safety of CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic disease.

Although most of these studies had small patient populations, the analysis revealed that CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer led to a similar side-effect profile to that observed in trials of the inhibitors given sequentially with adjuvant radiotherapy.

“These findings suggest that the simultaneous administration of CDK4/6 inhibitors and radiotherapy is generally well tolerated,” the ESTRO authors concluded but added that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy should be investigated more in the adjuvant locoregional, whole brain, and intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy settings.

The expert panel did note, however, that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy “could be offered” during palliative and ablative extracranial radiotherapy.

3. Only offer poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors plus radiotherapy in clinical trial setting

PARP inhibitors olaparib (Lynparza) and talazoprib (Talzenna) are standard of care in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Olaparib is also indicated for high-risk early breast cancer following neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

But data on combining PARP inhibitors with radiotherapy in breast cancer also remain limited.

One ongoing phase 2 trial, comparing olaparib plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone in 300 people with inflammatory breast cancer, is aiming to tease out the safety of the combination and whether it improves local control in patients with aggressive disease.

“The desire is to explore the exciting possibility that low doses of PARP inhibition may radiosensitize tumor cells more than normal tissues,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, who is leading the study.

Because of potential good or bad interactions between new systemic therapies and radiotherapy, “intentional trial design” is important, Dr. Jagsi said, so we “know the best way to combine treatments in practice to optimize outcomes.”

But given the evidence to date, the ESTRO experts advised waiting until “further research provides more comprehensive safety and efficacy data” in the primary, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. The experts also advised not offering PARP inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy to treat advanced breast cancer outside of clinical trials.

4. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors (PI3K) inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, and newer targeted agents should not be offered concurrently with radiotherapy

Clinical trial data on the safety of combining PI3K and mTOR inhibitors with radiation are thin, especially in advanced breast cancer. Typically, radiotherapy within 4 weeks before randomization, or 2 weeks for palliative radiation, was excluded in pivotal trials.

For this reason, the ESTRO team recommended that concurrent radiation with either PI3K inhibitors or mTOR inhibitors “should not be offered.”

ESTRO also cautioned against providing radiation concurrently with newer anti-HER2 tyrosine-kinase drugs, such as neratinib or tucatinib, or newer antibody-drug conjugates such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, until more data emerge on the safety of these combinations.

5. Combining older HER2-targeted drugs and radiotherapy generally safe

The ESTRO authors agreed that older anti-HER2 drugs trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and lapatinib (Tykerb) can be safely used concurrently with locoregional radiotherapy as well.

One of the biggest concerns in the field is how to combine radiation with systemic therapies in the setting of brain metastases, and the data on these older anti-HER2 drugs are relatively clear that it’s safe, Dr. Miller said.

For instance, in a 2019 study of 84 patients with 487 brain metastases, stereotactic radiosurgery given alongside lapatinib led to significantly higher rates of complete responses than stereotactic radiosurgery alone (35% vs 11%) with no increased risk for radiation necrosis.

The ESTRO team agreed, noting that the latest evidence supports the use of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, or lapatinib alongside radiotherapy for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

As for older antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) plus radiotherapy “might be considered” during adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy for breast cancer but should not be offered for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy, the ESTRO team said.

Dr. Jagsi declared the following conflicts in a recent 2024 publication: Stock options for advisory board role in Equity Quotient; grants or contracts from Genentech; and expert witness for Kleinbard, LLC, and Hawks Quindel Law. In the Keynote-522 trial publication Dr. Schmid declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eisai, Hoffmann-La Roche, Genetech, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Shah reported consulting for Impedimed, Videra Surgical, and PreludeDX.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted treatments, including antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapy agents, are now standard of care for breast cancer, but there are limited data on the safety of combining these newer agents alongside radiotherapy.

One reason is studies of new drugs typically exclude concurrent radiotherapy, said Kathy Miller, MD, a contributor to this news organization and professor of oncology and medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

If trials evaluating new targeted therapies included concurrent radiotherapy, it would be challenging to identify whether toxicities came from the drug itself, the radiation, or the combination, Dr. Miller explained.

Given the limited evidence, “we tend to be cautious and conservative” and not combine therapies that “we don’t know are safe or appropriate for patients,” said Chirag Shah, MD, director of breast radiology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Below is a guide to what we do and don’t know about combining radiotherapy and systemic treatments in breast cancer.

1. Immunotherapy plus radiotherapy likely safe but evidence is limited

Safety data on combining immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy in breast cancer are limited because concurrent radiotherapy has typically been excluded in pivotal trials.

The 2020 KEYNOTE-522 trial did provide a rare look at concurrent radiotherapy and immunotherapy in early triple-negative breast cancer. The analysis found “no safety concerns” with concurrent radiotherapy and pembrolizumab, lead investigator Peter Schmid, MD, of Queen Mary University of London, England, told this news organization.

Research on other solid tumor types also suggests that radiotherapy “can be considered safe” alongside immunotherapy, the authors of a recent ESTRO consensus said.

Despite evidence indicating radiotherapy alongside immunotherapy can be safe in patients with breast cancer, “certain aspects, such as patient selection, total dose, and dose per fraction, remain open for debate to achieve the best therapeutic outcomes,” the ESTRO experts cautioned.

2. CDK4/6 inhibitors may be offered with radiotherapy in some settings, not others

CDK4/6 inhibitors are now standard of care for first- or second-line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer.

“Unfortunately, we found no information regarding concurrent radiotherapy in the adjuvant setting” in pivotal trials for palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib, the ESTRO authors said. In the pivotal trials for palbociclib and abemaciclib, patients had to discontinue immunotherapy before initiating radiotherapy, and in the trial for ribociclib, palliative radiotherapy was allowed for relieving bone pain only.

However, in 2023, a team of experts from 12 countries attempted to piece together the available evidence, publishing a meta-analysis of 11 retrospective studies on the safety of CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic disease.

Although most of these studies had small patient populations, the analysis revealed that CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer led to a similar side-effect profile to that observed in trials of the inhibitors given sequentially with adjuvant radiotherapy.

“These findings suggest that the simultaneous administration of CDK4/6 inhibitors and radiotherapy is generally well tolerated,” the ESTRO authors concluded but added that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy should be investigated more in the adjuvant locoregional, whole brain, and intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy settings.

The expert panel did note, however, that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy “could be offered” during palliative and ablative extracranial radiotherapy.

3. Only offer poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors plus radiotherapy in clinical trial setting

PARP inhibitors olaparib (Lynparza) and talazoprib (Talzenna) are standard of care in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Olaparib is also indicated for high-risk early breast cancer following neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

But data on combining PARP inhibitors with radiotherapy in breast cancer also remain limited.

One ongoing phase 2 trial, comparing olaparib plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone in 300 people with inflammatory breast cancer, is aiming to tease out the safety of the combination and whether it improves local control in patients with aggressive disease.

“The desire is to explore the exciting possibility that low doses of PARP inhibition may radiosensitize tumor cells more than normal tissues,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, who is leading the study.

Because of potential good or bad interactions between new systemic therapies and radiotherapy, “intentional trial design” is important, Dr. Jagsi said, so we “know the best way to combine treatments in practice to optimize outcomes.”

But given the evidence to date, the ESTRO experts advised waiting until “further research provides more comprehensive safety and efficacy data” in the primary, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. The experts also advised not offering PARP inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy to treat advanced breast cancer outside of clinical trials.

4. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors (PI3K) inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, and newer targeted agents should not be offered concurrently with radiotherapy

Clinical trial data on the safety of combining PI3K and mTOR inhibitors with radiation are thin, especially in advanced breast cancer. Typically, radiotherapy within 4 weeks before randomization, or 2 weeks for palliative radiation, was excluded in pivotal trials.

For this reason, the ESTRO team recommended that concurrent radiation with either PI3K inhibitors or mTOR inhibitors “should not be offered.”

ESTRO also cautioned against providing radiation concurrently with newer anti-HER2 tyrosine-kinase drugs, such as neratinib or tucatinib, or newer antibody-drug conjugates such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, until more data emerge on the safety of these combinations.

5. Combining older HER2-targeted drugs and radiotherapy generally safe

The ESTRO authors agreed that older anti-HER2 drugs trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and lapatinib (Tykerb) can be safely used concurrently with locoregional radiotherapy as well.

One of the biggest concerns in the field is how to combine radiation with systemic therapies in the setting of brain metastases, and the data on these older anti-HER2 drugs are relatively clear that it’s safe, Dr. Miller said.

For instance, in a 2019 study of 84 patients with 487 brain metastases, stereotactic radiosurgery given alongside lapatinib led to significantly higher rates of complete responses than stereotactic radiosurgery alone (35% vs 11%) with no increased risk for radiation necrosis.

The ESTRO team agreed, noting that the latest evidence supports the use of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, or lapatinib alongside radiotherapy for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

As for older antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) plus radiotherapy “might be considered” during adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy for breast cancer but should not be offered for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy, the ESTRO team said.

Dr. Jagsi declared the following conflicts in a recent 2024 publication: Stock options for advisory board role in Equity Quotient; grants or contracts from Genentech; and expert witness for Kleinbard, LLC, and Hawks Quindel Law. In the Keynote-522 trial publication Dr. Schmid declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eisai, Hoffmann-La Roche, Genetech, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Shah reported consulting for Impedimed, Videra Surgical, and PreludeDX.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted treatments, including antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapy agents, are now standard of care for breast cancer, but there are limited data on the safety of combining these newer agents alongside radiotherapy.

One reason is studies of new drugs typically exclude concurrent radiotherapy, said Kathy Miller, MD, a contributor to this news organization and professor of oncology and medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

If trials evaluating new targeted therapies included concurrent radiotherapy, it would be challenging to identify whether toxicities came from the drug itself, the radiation, or the combination, Dr. Miller explained.

Given the limited evidence, “we tend to be cautious and conservative” and not combine therapies that “we don’t know are safe or appropriate for patients,” said Chirag Shah, MD, director of breast radiology at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Below is a guide to what we do and don’t know about combining radiotherapy and systemic treatments in breast cancer.

1. Immunotherapy plus radiotherapy likely safe but evidence is limited

Safety data on combining immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy in breast cancer are limited because concurrent radiotherapy has typically been excluded in pivotal trials.

The 2020 KEYNOTE-522 trial did provide a rare look at concurrent radiotherapy and immunotherapy in early triple-negative breast cancer. The analysis found “no safety concerns” with concurrent radiotherapy and pembrolizumab, lead investigator Peter Schmid, MD, of Queen Mary University of London, England, told this news organization.

Research on other solid tumor types also suggests that radiotherapy “can be considered safe” alongside immunotherapy, the authors of a recent ESTRO consensus said.

Despite evidence indicating radiotherapy alongside immunotherapy can be safe in patients with breast cancer, “certain aspects, such as patient selection, total dose, and dose per fraction, remain open for debate to achieve the best therapeutic outcomes,” the ESTRO experts cautioned.

2. CDK4/6 inhibitors may be offered with radiotherapy in some settings, not others

CDK4/6 inhibitors are now standard of care for first- or second-line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer.

“Unfortunately, we found no information regarding concurrent radiotherapy in the adjuvant setting” in pivotal trials for palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib, the ESTRO authors said. In the pivotal trials for palbociclib and abemaciclib, patients had to discontinue immunotherapy before initiating radiotherapy, and in the trial for ribociclib, palliative radiotherapy was allowed for relieving bone pain only.

However, in 2023, a team of experts from 12 countries attempted to piece together the available evidence, publishing a meta-analysis of 11 retrospective studies on the safety of CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic disease.

Although most of these studies had small patient populations, the analysis revealed that CDK4/6 inhibitors given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer led to a similar side-effect profile to that observed in trials of the inhibitors given sequentially with adjuvant radiotherapy.

“These findings suggest that the simultaneous administration of CDK4/6 inhibitors and radiotherapy is generally well tolerated,” the ESTRO authors concluded but added that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy should be investigated more in the adjuvant locoregional, whole brain, and intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy settings.

The expert panel did note, however, that CDK4/6 inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy “could be offered” during palliative and ablative extracranial radiotherapy.

3. Only offer poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors plus radiotherapy in clinical trial setting

PARP inhibitors olaparib (Lynparza) and talazoprib (Talzenna) are standard of care in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Olaparib is also indicated for high-risk early breast cancer following neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

But data on combining PARP inhibitors with radiotherapy in breast cancer also remain limited.

One ongoing phase 2 trial, comparing olaparib plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone in 300 people with inflammatory breast cancer, is aiming to tease out the safety of the combination and whether it improves local control in patients with aggressive disease.

“The desire is to explore the exciting possibility that low doses of PARP inhibition may radiosensitize tumor cells more than normal tissues,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, who is leading the study.

Because of potential good or bad interactions between new systemic therapies and radiotherapy, “intentional trial design” is important, Dr. Jagsi said, so we “know the best way to combine treatments in practice to optimize outcomes.”

But given the evidence to date, the ESTRO experts advised waiting until “further research provides more comprehensive safety and efficacy data” in the primary, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. The experts also advised not offering PARP inhibitors and concomitant radiotherapy to treat advanced breast cancer outside of clinical trials.

4. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors (PI3K) inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, and newer targeted agents should not be offered concurrently with radiotherapy

Clinical trial data on the safety of combining PI3K and mTOR inhibitors with radiation are thin, especially in advanced breast cancer. Typically, radiotherapy within 4 weeks before randomization, or 2 weeks for palliative radiation, was excluded in pivotal trials.

For this reason, the ESTRO team recommended that concurrent radiation with either PI3K inhibitors or mTOR inhibitors “should not be offered.”

ESTRO also cautioned against providing radiation concurrently with newer anti-HER2 tyrosine-kinase drugs, such as neratinib or tucatinib, or newer antibody-drug conjugates such as trastuzumab deruxtecan, until more data emerge on the safety of these combinations.

5. Combining older HER2-targeted drugs and radiotherapy generally safe

The ESTRO authors agreed that older anti-HER2 drugs trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and lapatinib (Tykerb) can be safely used concurrently with locoregional radiotherapy as well.

One of the biggest concerns in the field is how to combine radiation with systemic therapies in the setting of brain metastases, and the data on these older anti-HER2 drugs are relatively clear that it’s safe, Dr. Miller said.

For instance, in a 2019 study of 84 patients with 487 brain metastases, stereotactic radiosurgery given alongside lapatinib led to significantly higher rates of complete responses than stereotactic radiosurgery alone (35% vs 11%) with no increased risk for radiation necrosis.

The ESTRO team agreed, noting that the latest evidence supports the use of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, or lapatinib alongside radiotherapy for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

As for older antibody-drug conjugates, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) plus radiotherapy “might be considered” during adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy for breast cancer but should not be offered for whole brain and ablative intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy, the ESTRO team said.

Dr. Jagsi declared the following conflicts in a recent 2024 publication: Stock options for advisory board role in Equity Quotient; grants or contracts from Genentech; and expert witness for Kleinbard, LLC, and Hawks Quindel Law. In the Keynote-522 trial publication Dr. Schmid declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eisai, Hoffmann-La Roche, Genetech, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Shah reported consulting for Impedimed, Videra Surgical, and PreludeDX.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.