Multiple Myeloma

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded the label of isatuximab-irfc (Sarclisa — Sanofi-Aventis) on September 20 to include treatment with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The new first-line indication joins two previous approvals of the CD38 antibody for later-line indications, one for relapsed disease with carfilzomib and dexamethasone, the other with pomalidomide and dexamethasone after at least two prior regimens that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

In addition to other MM indications, isatuximab’s anti-CD38 competitor on the US market, daratumumab (Darzalex — Johnson & Johnson), also carries a first-line indication for transplant-ineligible MM in combination with either lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone.

Isatuximab’s new approval is based on the open-label IMROZ trial in 446 patients randomized 3:2 to either isatuximab or placebo on a background of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, estimated progression-free survival (PFS) was 63.2% with isatuximab add-on vs 45.2% in the placebo arm. Median PFS was not reached in the isatuximab group but 54.3 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; 98.5% CI, 0.41-0.88; P < .001). 

In a press release announcing the results, Sanofi said “IMROZ is the first global phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody” to show benefit in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the current standard of care for transplant-ineligible MM.

Upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy, pneumonia, musculoskeletal pain, cataract, constipation, peripheral edema, rash, infusion-related reaction, insomnia, and COVID-19 were the most common adverse events in the isatuximab arm of IMROZ, occurring in 20% or more of subjects.

Eleven percent of isatuximab patients died during treatment vs 5.5% in the placebo group, driven primarily by infections.

The recommended dose of isatuximab is 10 mg/kg every week for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The cost is approximately $843 for 5 mL of the 20 mg/mL intravenous solution, according to Drugs.com.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded the label of isatuximab-irfc (Sarclisa — Sanofi-Aventis) on September 20 to include treatment with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The new first-line indication joins two previous approvals of the CD38 antibody for later-line indications, one for relapsed disease with carfilzomib and dexamethasone, the other with pomalidomide and dexamethasone after at least two prior regimens that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

In addition to other MM indications, isatuximab’s anti-CD38 competitor on the US market, daratumumab (Darzalex — Johnson & Johnson), also carries a first-line indication for transplant-ineligible MM in combination with either lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone.

Isatuximab’s new approval is based on the open-label IMROZ trial in 446 patients randomized 3:2 to either isatuximab or placebo on a background of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, estimated progression-free survival (PFS) was 63.2% with isatuximab add-on vs 45.2% in the placebo arm. Median PFS was not reached in the isatuximab group but 54.3 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; 98.5% CI, 0.41-0.88; P < .001). 

In a press release announcing the results, Sanofi said “IMROZ is the first global phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody” to show benefit in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the current standard of care for transplant-ineligible MM.

Upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy, pneumonia, musculoskeletal pain, cataract, constipation, peripheral edema, rash, infusion-related reaction, insomnia, and COVID-19 were the most common adverse events in the isatuximab arm of IMROZ, occurring in 20% or more of subjects.

Eleven percent of isatuximab patients died during treatment vs 5.5% in the placebo group, driven primarily by infections.

The recommended dose of isatuximab is 10 mg/kg every week for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The cost is approximately $843 for 5 mL of the 20 mg/mL intravenous solution, according to Drugs.com.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded the label of isatuximab-irfc (Sarclisa — Sanofi-Aventis) on September 20 to include treatment with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The new first-line indication joins two previous approvals of the CD38 antibody for later-line indications, one for relapsed disease with carfilzomib and dexamethasone, the other with pomalidomide and dexamethasone after at least two prior regimens that include lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

In addition to other MM indications, isatuximab’s anti-CD38 competitor on the US market, daratumumab (Darzalex — Johnson & Johnson), also carries a first-line indication for transplant-ineligible MM in combination with either lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone.

Isatuximab’s new approval is based on the open-label IMROZ trial in 446 patients randomized 3:2 to either isatuximab or placebo on a background of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, estimated progression-free survival (PFS) was 63.2% with isatuximab add-on vs 45.2% in the placebo arm. Median PFS was not reached in the isatuximab group but 54.3 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.60; 98.5% CI, 0.41-0.88; P < .001). 

In a press release announcing the results, Sanofi said “IMROZ is the first global phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody” to show benefit in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the current standard of care for transplant-ineligible MM.

Upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhea, fatigue, peripheral sensory neuropathy, pneumonia, musculoskeletal pain, cataract, constipation, peripheral edema, rash, infusion-related reaction, insomnia, and COVID-19 were the most common adverse events in the isatuximab arm of IMROZ, occurring in 20% or more of subjects.

Eleven percent of isatuximab patients died during treatment vs 5.5% in the placebo group, driven primarily by infections.

The recommended dose of isatuximab is 10 mg/kg every week for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The cost is approximately $843 for 5 mL of the 20 mg/mL intravenous solution, according to Drugs.com.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a game changer for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but questions remain as to how — and when — the immunotherapy will best be used for patients who experience disease relapse.

Will CAR T be best used in early relapse? Experts debated this question at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology. Based on attendees’ votes, at least one side of the debate emerged victorious.

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, came out swinging with earnest support for using CAR T in early relapse. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, argued in favor of being “a little more circumspect.”
 

Dr. Patel: Yes, Earlier Is Better

A pre-debate audience poll leaned Dr. Patel’s way, with about 59% of 73 votes favoring CAR T in early relapse, 33% favoring reserving CAR T for patients who relapse after three or more lines of therapy, and 8% undecided.

“CAR T is not just a drug — it’s an actual therapy that takes a lot of logistics, as well as bridging therapy and all these other things to take into account,” said Dr. Patel. “And again, when I can go earlier, I have control over some of this.”

Furthermore, randomized phase 3 data from the KarMMA-3 study and the CARTITUDE-4 study showed that multiple standard therapies were not as good as CAR T in the early relapse setting, she said, pointing to the respective hazard ratios for disease progression or death with CAR T vs standard therapies of 0.49 and 0.26.

CARTITUDE-4 also suggested that manufacturing failures are more likely in later relapse — when time is already of greater essence, she said, noting that it can take an additional 3 months when restarting the process.

When it comes to toxicity, yes, it is a concern, she said.

“But we know how to decrease toxicity,” she stressed. “And again, with our second- and third-line approaches, we actually have better therapies to give for bridging.”

Quality of life is another important consideration, Dr. Patel said, noting only CAR T offers a “one-and-done” therapy that helps patients “truly feel better.”

“They’re not having to come into hospitals as often, and this is not just for months; it’s for years,” she said. “To be able to give that to somebody is huge, and again, we have objective data that show that compared to our standard of care therapies, patients do better in almost every realm of quality of life metrics.”

Dr. Patel also pointed to recent data from a retrospective study showing that for bridging therapy, less is more when disease is controlled, and in the early-line setting, more and safer options are available for reducing tumor burden.

Early CAR T is better for older or frail patients as well, she argued, noting that these patients don’t have time to wait, and a new study demonstrates that they tend to do well with CAR T in the early relapse setting.

The choice for early CAR T is clear in patients with high-risk disease, but Dr. Patel stressed that it shouldn’t be reserved for those patients, asking, “When has anything worked well for patients with high-risk disease and not [also] better for standard-risk patients?”

“And why give only 20%-25% of your patients [who actually reach fifth-line treatment] access to something that we know has really revolutionized myeloma therapy?” she said.

Many patients don’t have access, and that’s an issue, she acknowledged, adding: “But for those who do, we really should be giving it to them as soon as possible.”
 

Dr. Usmani: Reserve CAR T for Later Relapse

Not so fast, said Dr. Usmani. “All of these therapies are doing wonders for our patients, and we believe in them, but we have to be a little circumspect in looking at this data more closely and not just with emotions,” he added, noting that many options exist for patients in a first or second relapse, and new options are emerging.

There is also a “harsh reality” in terms of CAR T availability, he noted, explaining that, in 2021, about 180,000 people were living with MM, and about two thirds of those had relapsed disease. Meanwhile, fewer than 1000 CAR T products have been delivered each year for patients with relapsed MM since they were approved in this setting in the United States.

“So, it’s a pipe dream, seriously, that we will be able to utilize CAR T for all patients in early relapsed disease,” he said, adding that capacity will remain an issue because of limited resources.

The existing data, including from KarMMa-3 and CARTITUDE-4, show little potential for long-term benefit with early vs later CAR T.

“There is no plateau,” he said of the survival curves in KarMMa-3, underscoring the lack of a difference in overall survival benefit based on CAR T timing.

The CARTITUDE-4 curves “look great,” and it may be that a “small plateau emerges,” but they don’t demonstrate a benefit of earlier vs later CAR T, he said.

As Dr. Patel noted, there are few treatment options for patients with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and immunomodulatory drug resistance at first relapse. However, that situation will soon change, Dr. Usmani stated.

“Guess what? Belamaf is coming to the rescue!” he said of the off-the-shelf and more accessible B-cell maturation antigen-targeted antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, which has recently been evaluated in the DREAMM 7 and DREAMM 8 trials.

DREAMM 7 demonstrated improved survival vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in the relapsed/refractory MM setting when used in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. DREAMM 8 shows similar benefit with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone vs pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

“Belamaf combinations in the one to three lines [of prior therapy] setting look really good,” he said, noting a particular benefit for progression-free survival and a trend toward improved overall survival.

Considering these factors, as well as the risk for cytopenias and the subsequent risk for infection in most patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy and the known potential risk for secondary malignancies, Dr. Usmani said that he will remain “in the camp of being really careful in selecting CAR T patients for early relapse” until more is known about the risks.

“CAR T for all is not the answer. I think we have to be careful in picking CAR T patients; it’s not a zero-sum game here,” he said, stressing that “there are too many unknowns with the use of early CAR T therapy.”

“It makes sense in some, but not for everyone,” he said, emphasizing the importance of including patients in the discussion.

“The great thing is we have all these options for our patients,” he said.

Dr. Usmani persuaded at least a few colleagues: The final vote showed 42% of 124 voters supported early CAR T, compared with 52% who supported CAR T after three or more lines of therapy and 6% who remained undecided.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a game changer for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but questions remain as to how — and when — the immunotherapy will best be used for patients who experience disease relapse.

Will CAR T be best used in early relapse? Experts debated this question at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology. Based on attendees’ votes, at least one side of the debate emerged victorious.

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, came out swinging with earnest support for using CAR T in early relapse. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, argued in favor of being “a little more circumspect.”
 

Dr. Patel: Yes, Earlier Is Better

A pre-debate audience poll leaned Dr. Patel’s way, with about 59% of 73 votes favoring CAR T in early relapse, 33% favoring reserving CAR T for patients who relapse after three or more lines of therapy, and 8% undecided.

“CAR T is not just a drug — it’s an actual therapy that takes a lot of logistics, as well as bridging therapy and all these other things to take into account,” said Dr. Patel. “And again, when I can go earlier, I have control over some of this.”

Furthermore, randomized phase 3 data from the KarMMA-3 study and the CARTITUDE-4 study showed that multiple standard therapies were not as good as CAR T in the early relapse setting, she said, pointing to the respective hazard ratios for disease progression or death with CAR T vs standard therapies of 0.49 and 0.26.

CARTITUDE-4 also suggested that manufacturing failures are more likely in later relapse — when time is already of greater essence, she said, noting that it can take an additional 3 months when restarting the process.

When it comes to toxicity, yes, it is a concern, she said.

“But we know how to decrease toxicity,” she stressed. “And again, with our second- and third-line approaches, we actually have better therapies to give for bridging.”

Quality of life is another important consideration, Dr. Patel said, noting only CAR T offers a “one-and-done” therapy that helps patients “truly feel better.”

“They’re not having to come into hospitals as often, and this is not just for months; it’s for years,” she said. “To be able to give that to somebody is huge, and again, we have objective data that show that compared to our standard of care therapies, patients do better in almost every realm of quality of life metrics.”

Dr. Patel also pointed to recent data from a retrospective study showing that for bridging therapy, less is more when disease is controlled, and in the early-line setting, more and safer options are available for reducing tumor burden.

Early CAR T is better for older or frail patients as well, she argued, noting that these patients don’t have time to wait, and a new study demonstrates that they tend to do well with CAR T in the early relapse setting.

The choice for early CAR T is clear in patients with high-risk disease, but Dr. Patel stressed that it shouldn’t be reserved for those patients, asking, “When has anything worked well for patients with high-risk disease and not [also] better for standard-risk patients?”

“And why give only 20%-25% of your patients [who actually reach fifth-line treatment] access to something that we know has really revolutionized myeloma therapy?” she said.

Many patients don’t have access, and that’s an issue, she acknowledged, adding: “But for those who do, we really should be giving it to them as soon as possible.”
 

Dr. Usmani: Reserve CAR T for Later Relapse

Not so fast, said Dr. Usmani. “All of these therapies are doing wonders for our patients, and we believe in them, but we have to be a little circumspect in looking at this data more closely and not just with emotions,” he added, noting that many options exist for patients in a first or second relapse, and new options are emerging.

There is also a “harsh reality” in terms of CAR T availability, he noted, explaining that, in 2021, about 180,000 people were living with MM, and about two thirds of those had relapsed disease. Meanwhile, fewer than 1000 CAR T products have been delivered each year for patients with relapsed MM since they were approved in this setting in the United States.

“So, it’s a pipe dream, seriously, that we will be able to utilize CAR T for all patients in early relapsed disease,” he said, adding that capacity will remain an issue because of limited resources.

The existing data, including from KarMMa-3 and CARTITUDE-4, show little potential for long-term benefit with early vs later CAR T.

“There is no plateau,” he said of the survival curves in KarMMa-3, underscoring the lack of a difference in overall survival benefit based on CAR T timing.

The CARTITUDE-4 curves “look great,” and it may be that a “small plateau emerges,” but they don’t demonstrate a benefit of earlier vs later CAR T, he said.

As Dr. Patel noted, there are few treatment options for patients with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and immunomodulatory drug resistance at first relapse. However, that situation will soon change, Dr. Usmani stated.

“Guess what? Belamaf is coming to the rescue!” he said of the off-the-shelf and more accessible B-cell maturation antigen-targeted antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, which has recently been evaluated in the DREAMM 7 and DREAMM 8 trials.

DREAMM 7 demonstrated improved survival vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in the relapsed/refractory MM setting when used in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. DREAMM 8 shows similar benefit with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone vs pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

“Belamaf combinations in the one to three lines [of prior therapy] setting look really good,” he said, noting a particular benefit for progression-free survival and a trend toward improved overall survival.

Considering these factors, as well as the risk for cytopenias and the subsequent risk for infection in most patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy and the known potential risk for secondary malignancies, Dr. Usmani said that he will remain “in the camp of being really careful in selecting CAR T patients for early relapse” until more is known about the risks.

“CAR T for all is not the answer. I think we have to be careful in picking CAR T patients; it’s not a zero-sum game here,” he said, stressing that “there are too many unknowns with the use of early CAR T therapy.”

“It makes sense in some, but not for everyone,” he said, emphasizing the importance of including patients in the discussion.

“The great thing is we have all these options for our patients,” he said.

Dr. Usmani persuaded at least a few colleagues: The final vote showed 42% of 124 voters supported early CAR T, compared with 52% who supported CAR T after three or more lines of therapy and 6% who remained undecided.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a game changer for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but questions remain as to how — and when — the immunotherapy will best be used for patients who experience disease relapse.

Will CAR T be best used in early relapse? Experts debated this question at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology. Based on attendees’ votes, at least one side of the debate emerged victorious.

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, came out swinging with earnest support for using CAR T in early relapse. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, argued in favor of being “a little more circumspect.”
 

Dr. Patel: Yes, Earlier Is Better

A pre-debate audience poll leaned Dr. Patel’s way, with about 59% of 73 votes favoring CAR T in early relapse, 33% favoring reserving CAR T for patients who relapse after three or more lines of therapy, and 8% undecided.

“CAR T is not just a drug — it’s an actual therapy that takes a lot of logistics, as well as bridging therapy and all these other things to take into account,” said Dr. Patel. “And again, when I can go earlier, I have control over some of this.”

Furthermore, randomized phase 3 data from the KarMMA-3 study and the CARTITUDE-4 study showed that multiple standard therapies were not as good as CAR T in the early relapse setting, she said, pointing to the respective hazard ratios for disease progression or death with CAR T vs standard therapies of 0.49 and 0.26.

CARTITUDE-4 also suggested that manufacturing failures are more likely in later relapse — when time is already of greater essence, she said, noting that it can take an additional 3 months when restarting the process.

When it comes to toxicity, yes, it is a concern, she said.

“But we know how to decrease toxicity,” she stressed. “And again, with our second- and third-line approaches, we actually have better therapies to give for bridging.”

Quality of life is another important consideration, Dr. Patel said, noting only CAR T offers a “one-and-done” therapy that helps patients “truly feel better.”

“They’re not having to come into hospitals as often, and this is not just for months; it’s for years,” she said. “To be able to give that to somebody is huge, and again, we have objective data that show that compared to our standard of care therapies, patients do better in almost every realm of quality of life metrics.”

Dr. Patel also pointed to recent data from a retrospective study showing that for bridging therapy, less is more when disease is controlled, and in the early-line setting, more and safer options are available for reducing tumor burden.

Early CAR T is better for older or frail patients as well, she argued, noting that these patients don’t have time to wait, and a new study demonstrates that they tend to do well with CAR T in the early relapse setting.

The choice for early CAR T is clear in patients with high-risk disease, but Dr. Patel stressed that it shouldn’t be reserved for those patients, asking, “When has anything worked well for patients with high-risk disease and not [also] better for standard-risk patients?”

“And why give only 20%-25% of your patients [who actually reach fifth-line treatment] access to something that we know has really revolutionized myeloma therapy?” she said.

Many patients don’t have access, and that’s an issue, she acknowledged, adding: “But for those who do, we really should be giving it to them as soon as possible.”
 

Dr. Usmani: Reserve CAR T for Later Relapse

Not so fast, said Dr. Usmani. “All of these therapies are doing wonders for our patients, and we believe in them, but we have to be a little circumspect in looking at this data more closely and not just with emotions,” he added, noting that many options exist for patients in a first or second relapse, and new options are emerging.

There is also a “harsh reality” in terms of CAR T availability, he noted, explaining that, in 2021, about 180,000 people were living with MM, and about two thirds of those had relapsed disease. Meanwhile, fewer than 1000 CAR T products have been delivered each year for patients with relapsed MM since they were approved in this setting in the United States.

“So, it’s a pipe dream, seriously, that we will be able to utilize CAR T for all patients in early relapsed disease,” he said, adding that capacity will remain an issue because of limited resources.

The existing data, including from KarMMa-3 and CARTITUDE-4, show little potential for long-term benefit with early vs later CAR T.

“There is no plateau,” he said of the survival curves in KarMMa-3, underscoring the lack of a difference in overall survival benefit based on CAR T timing.

The CARTITUDE-4 curves “look great,” and it may be that a “small plateau emerges,” but they don’t demonstrate a benefit of earlier vs later CAR T, he said.

As Dr. Patel noted, there are few treatment options for patients with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and immunomodulatory drug resistance at first relapse. However, that situation will soon change, Dr. Usmani stated.

“Guess what? Belamaf is coming to the rescue!” he said of the off-the-shelf and more accessible B-cell maturation antigen-targeted antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, which has recently been evaluated in the DREAMM 7 and DREAMM 8 trials.

DREAMM 7 demonstrated improved survival vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in the relapsed/refractory MM setting when used in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. DREAMM 8 shows similar benefit with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone vs pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

“Belamaf combinations in the one to three lines [of prior therapy] setting look really good,” he said, noting a particular benefit for progression-free survival and a trend toward improved overall survival.

Considering these factors, as well as the risk for cytopenias and the subsequent risk for infection in most patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy and the known potential risk for secondary malignancies, Dr. Usmani said that he will remain “in the camp of being really careful in selecting CAR T patients for early relapse” until more is known about the risks.

“CAR T for all is not the answer. I think we have to be careful in picking CAR T patients; it’s not a zero-sum game here,” he said, stressing that “there are too many unknowns with the use of early CAR T therapy.”

“It makes sense in some, but not for everyone,” he said, emphasizing the importance of including patients in the discussion.

“The great thing is we have all these options for our patients,” he said.

Dr. Usmani persuaded at least a few colleagues: The final vote showed 42% of 124 voters supported early CAR T, compared with 52% who supported CAR T after three or more lines of therapy and 6% who remained undecided.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MADRID — Elevated interleukin (IL) 6 levels are associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D), potentially enabling the identification of higher-risk individuals through a simple blood test.

METHODOLOGY:

• T2D is associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers, including breast, renal, uterine, thyroid, ovarian, and gastrointestinal cancers, as well as multiple myeloma, possibly because of chronic low-grade inflammation.
• Researchers explored whether the markers of inflammation IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) can serve as predictive biomarkers for obesity-related cancers in patients recently diagnosed with T2D.
• They identified patients with recent-onset T2D and no prior history of cancer participating in the ongoing Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort study.
• At study initiation, plasma levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha were measured using Meso Scale Discovery assays, and serum levels of hsCRP were measured using immunofluorometric assays.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 6,466 eligible patients (40.5% women; median age, 60.9 years), 327 developed obesity-related cancers over a median follow-up of 8.8 years.
• Each SD increase in log-transformed IL-6 levels increased the risk for obesity-related cancers by 19%.
• The researchers did not find a strong association between TNF-alpha or hsCRP and obesity-related cancers.
• The addition of baseline IL-6 levels to other well-known risk factors for obesity-related cancers improved the performance of a cancer prediction model from 0.685 to 0.693, translating to a small but important increase in the ability to predict whether an individual would develop one of these cancers.

IN PRACTICE:

“In future, a simple blood test could identify those at higher risk of the cancers,” said the study’s lead author in an accompanying press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathilde D. Bennetsen, Steno Diabetes Center Odense, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and published online on August 27 as an early release from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in this abstract. However, the reliance on registry data may have introduced potential biases related to data accuracy and completeness.

DISCLOSURES:

The Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes was supported by grants from the Danish Agency for Science and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MADRID — Elevated interleukin (IL) 6 levels are associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D), potentially enabling the identification of higher-risk individuals through a simple blood test.

METHODOLOGY:

• T2D is associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers, including breast, renal, uterine, thyroid, ovarian, and gastrointestinal cancers, as well as multiple myeloma, possibly because of chronic low-grade inflammation.
• Researchers explored whether the markers of inflammation IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) can serve as predictive biomarkers for obesity-related cancers in patients recently diagnosed with T2D.
• They identified patients with recent-onset T2D and no prior history of cancer participating in the ongoing Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort study.
• At study initiation, plasma levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha were measured using Meso Scale Discovery assays, and serum levels of hsCRP were measured using immunofluorometric assays.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 6,466 eligible patients (40.5% women; median age, 60.9 years), 327 developed obesity-related cancers over a median follow-up of 8.8 years.
• Each SD increase in log-transformed IL-6 levels increased the risk for obesity-related cancers by 19%.
• The researchers did not find a strong association between TNF-alpha or hsCRP and obesity-related cancers.
• The addition of baseline IL-6 levels to other well-known risk factors for obesity-related cancers improved the performance of a cancer prediction model from 0.685 to 0.693, translating to a small but important increase in the ability to predict whether an individual would develop one of these cancers.

IN PRACTICE:

“In future, a simple blood test could identify those at higher risk of the cancers,” said the study’s lead author in an accompanying press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathilde D. Bennetsen, Steno Diabetes Center Odense, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and published online on August 27 as an early release from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in this abstract. However, the reliance on registry data may have introduced potential biases related to data accuracy and completeness.

DISCLOSURES:

The Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes was supported by grants from the Danish Agency for Science and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MADRID — Elevated interleukin (IL) 6 levels are associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D), potentially enabling the identification of higher-risk individuals through a simple blood test.

METHODOLOGY:

• T2D is associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers, including breast, renal, uterine, thyroid, ovarian, and gastrointestinal cancers, as well as multiple myeloma, possibly because of chronic low-grade inflammation.
• Researchers explored whether the markers of inflammation IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) can serve as predictive biomarkers for obesity-related cancers in patients recently diagnosed with T2D.
• They identified patients with recent-onset T2D and no prior history of cancer participating in the ongoing Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort study.
• At study initiation, plasma levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha were measured using Meso Scale Discovery assays, and serum levels of hsCRP were measured using immunofluorometric assays.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 6,466 eligible patients (40.5% women; median age, 60.9 years), 327 developed obesity-related cancers over a median follow-up of 8.8 years.
• Each SD increase in log-transformed IL-6 levels increased the risk for obesity-related cancers by 19%.
• The researchers did not find a strong association between TNF-alpha or hsCRP and obesity-related cancers.
• The addition of baseline IL-6 levels to other well-known risk factors for obesity-related cancers improved the performance of a cancer prediction model from 0.685 to 0.693, translating to a small but important increase in the ability to predict whether an individual would develop one of these cancers.

IN PRACTICE:

“In future, a simple blood test could identify those at higher risk of the cancers,” said the study’s lead author in an accompanying press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathilde D. Bennetsen, Steno Diabetes Center Odense, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and published online on August 27 as an early release from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in this abstract. However, the reliance on registry data may have introduced potential biases related to data accuracy and completeness.

DISCLOSURES:

The Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes was supported by grants from the Danish Agency for Science and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Teclistamab, a T-cell engager that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), improved disease activity in four patients with refractory autoimmune conditions. In a separately published case report, teclistamab treatment induced remission in a patient with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

BACKGROUND: 

• Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells or T-cell engagers against CD19 have been effective in small studies of patients with treatment-resistant autoimmune diseases.
• Some patients have disease rooted in long-lived plasma cells that express BCMA but not CD19, making them resistant to CD19 CAR T-cell therapy.
• Teclistamab acts on T cells through CD3 and targets plasmablasts and plasma cells through BCMA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In one case series, researchers administered teclistamab subcutaneously to four patients with autoimmune diseases resistant to more than five immunosuppressants, including rituximab.
• Patient 1 had systemic sclerosis, patient 2 had primary Sjögren disease, patient 3 had idiopathic inflammatory myositis, and patient 4 had rheumatoid arthritis.
• Researchers incrementally increased teclistamab dosage in an inpatient setting: 0.06 mg/kg on day 1, 0.3 mg/kg on day 3, and 1.5 mg/kg on day 5. Patients 2, 3, and 4 received one maintenance dose of 1.5 mg/kg after 4 weeks, and patient 1 received a 1.5-mg/kg dose after 12 weeks.
• In the single case report, the patient with SLE received a step-up dosage of teclistamab (0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg) followed by 0.8 mg/kg on day 7. She received 1.5 mg/kg at weeks 2 and 5.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Teclistamab therapy led to significant improvements in disease activity in all four patients, with notable reductions in skin disease, arthritis, and lung function scores.
• Teclistamab therapy had a good safety profile, with no neurotoxicity or myelotoxicity and only lower-grade cytokine release syndrome reported.
• Researchers observed seroconversion of PM-Scl-75, PM-Scl-100, rheumatoid factor, and autoantibodies against mutated citrullinated vimentin and lower levels of autoantibodies ANA, MDAS, SS-A/Ro, SS-B/La, and PL-7 after treatment.
• In the separate case report, the patient reached complete drug-free remission by week 6, as defined by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000.
• The level of anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies in the patient with SLE decreased rapidly, reaching normal range by week 5 and remaining undetectable through week 16.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data show that the targeting of the plasma-cell compartment by a BCMA-targeted T-cell engager is feasible in patients with autoimmune disease. Whether such therapy results in sustained clinical remission warrants further study,” write the authors of the four-patient case series.

SOURCE: 

Melanie Hagen, MD, Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen–Nuremberg, Germany, and colleagues reported their case series online in The New England Journal of Medicine. Tobias Alexander, MD, and colleagues at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, also described their single case report in The New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The small number of patients limits the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of follow-up may not capture long-term effects and potential late-onset adverse events. The lack of a control group makes it difficult to attribute improvements solely to teclistamab therapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The four-patient case series was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, and the European Union. The single case report was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the European Union. Several authors have disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen Biotech, which markets teclistamab.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Teclistamab, a T-cell engager that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), improved disease activity in four patients with refractory autoimmune conditions. In a separately published case report, teclistamab treatment induced remission in a patient with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

BACKGROUND: 

• Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells or T-cell engagers against CD19 have been effective in small studies of patients with treatment-resistant autoimmune diseases.
• Some patients have disease rooted in long-lived plasma cells that express BCMA but not CD19, making them resistant to CD19 CAR T-cell therapy.
• Teclistamab acts on T cells through CD3 and targets plasmablasts and plasma cells through BCMA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In one case series, researchers administered teclistamab subcutaneously to four patients with autoimmune diseases resistant to more than five immunosuppressants, including rituximab.
• Patient 1 had systemic sclerosis, patient 2 had primary Sjögren disease, patient 3 had idiopathic inflammatory myositis, and patient 4 had rheumatoid arthritis.
• Researchers incrementally increased teclistamab dosage in an inpatient setting: 0.06 mg/kg on day 1, 0.3 mg/kg on day 3, and 1.5 mg/kg on day 5. Patients 2, 3, and 4 received one maintenance dose of 1.5 mg/kg after 4 weeks, and patient 1 received a 1.5-mg/kg dose after 12 weeks.
• In the single case report, the patient with SLE received a step-up dosage of teclistamab (0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg) followed by 0.8 mg/kg on day 7. She received 1.5 mg/kg at weeks 2 and 5.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Teclistamab therapy led to significant improvements in disease activity in all four patients, with notable reductions in skin disease, arthritis, and lung function scores.
• Teclistamab therapy had a good safety profile, with no neurotoxicity or myelotoxicity and only lower-grade cytokine release syndrome reported.
• Researchers observed seroconversion of PM-Scl-75, PM-Scl-100, rheumatoid factor, and autoantibodies against mutated citrullinated vimentin and lower levels of autoantibodies ANA, MDAS, SS-A/Ro, SS-B/La, and PL-7 after treatment.
• In the separate case report, the patient reached complete drug-free remission by week 6, as defined by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000.
• The level of anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies in the patient with SLE decreased rapidly, reaching normal range by week 5 and remaining undetectable through week 16.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data show that the targeting of the plasma-cell compartment by a BCMA-targeted T-cell engager is feasible in patients with autoimmune disease. Whether such therapy results in sustained clinical remission warrants further study,” write the authors of the four-patient case series.

SOURCE: 

Melanie Hagen, MD, Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen–Nuremberg, Germany, and colleagues reported their case series online in The New England Journal of Medicine. Tobias Alexander, MD, and colleagues at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, also described their single case report in The New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The small number of patients limits the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of follow-up may not capture long-term effects and potential late-onset adverse events. The lack of a control group makes it difficult to attribute improvements solely to teclistamab therapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The four-patient case series was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, and the European Union. The single case report was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the European Union. Several authors have disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen Biotech, which markets teclistamab.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Teclistamab, a T-cell engager that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), improved disease activity in four patients with refractory autoimmune conditions. In a separately published case report, teclistamab treatment induced remission in a patient with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

BACKGROUND: 

• Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells or T-cell engagers against CD19 have been effective in small studies of patients with treatment-resistant autoimmune diseases.
• Some patients have disease rooted in long-lived plasma cells that express BCMA but not CD19, making them resistant to CD19 CAR T-cell therapy.
• Teclistamab acts on T cells through CD3 and targets plasmablasts and plasma cells through BCMA.

METHODOLOGY:

• In one case series, researchers administered teclistamab subcutaneously to four patients with autoimmune diseases resistant to more than five immunosuppressants, including rituximab.
• Patient 1 had systemic sclerosis, patient 2 had primary Sjögren disease, patient 3 had idiopathic inflammatory myositis, and patient 4 had rheumatoid arthritis.
• Researchers incrementally increased teclistamab dosage in an inpatient setting: 0.06 mg/kg on day 1, 0.3 mg/kg on day 3, and 1.5 mg/kg on day 5. Patients 2, 3, and 4 received one maintenance dose of 1.5 mg/kg after 4 weeks, and patient 1 received a 1.5-mg/kg dose after 12 weeks.
• In the single case report, the patient with SLE received a step-up dosage of teclistamab (0.06 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg) followed by 0.8 mg/kg on day 7. She received 1.5 mg/kg at weeks 2 and 5.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Teclistamab therapy led to significant improvements in disease activity in all four patients, with notable reductions in skin disease, arthritis, and lung function scores.
• Teclistamab therapy had a good safety profile, with no neurotoxicity or myelotoxicity and only lower-grade cytokine release syndrome reported.
• Researchers observed seroconversion of PM-Scl-75, PM-Scl-100, rheumatoid factor, and autoantibodies against mutated citrullinated vimentin and lower levels of autoantibodies ANA, MDAS, SS-A/Ro, SS-B/La, and PL-7 after treatment.
• In the separate case report, the patient reached complete drug-free remission by week 6, as defined by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000.
• The level of anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies in the patient with SLE decreased rapidly, reaching normal range by week 5 and remaining undetectable through week 16.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data show that the targeting of the plasma-cell compartment by a BCMA-targeted T-cell engager is feasible in patients with autoimmune disease. Whether such therapy results in sustained clinical remission warrants further study,” write the authors of the four-patient case series.

SOURCE: 

Melanie Hagen, MD, Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen–Nuremberg, Germany, and colleagues reported their case series online in The New England Journal of Medicine. Tobias Alexander, MD, and colleagues at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, also described their single case report in The New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The small number of patients limits the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of follow-up may not capture long-term effects and potential late-onset adverse events. The lack of a control group makes it difficult to attribute improvements solely to teclistamab therapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The four-patient case series was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, and the European Union. The single case report was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the European Union. Several authors have disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Janssen Biotech, which markets teclistamab.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.