User login
Inavolisib Added to Standard Tx Shows Sustained Benefit in Advanced BC
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for inavolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant based on initial results of the study presented at a December 2023 meeting. The phase 3 results showed the inavolisib-based regimen more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the two other drugs alone as first-line treatment, researchers reported.
The expanded analysis of the trial, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looked at additional endpoints, including PFS2 (defined as time from randomization to end of next-line treatment), time to first chemotherapy, key adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
“Triple combination of inavolisib, a novel PI3K inhibitor, with palbociclib and fulvestrant, resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS (15.0 vs 7.3 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, P less than .0001),” lead investigator Dejan Juric, MD, reported at the meeting, referring to the initial results.
In additional endpoints, the inavolisib-based triplet also “sustained benefit beyond disease progression, delay in chemotherapy initiation, a manageable safety profile, prolonged time to deterioration in pain severity, and maintained quality of life, supporting the overall conclusion that this triple combination is a promising new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutated HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer,” said the oncologist, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 325 patients whose disease had progressed during or within 12 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen and who had not received prior systemic therapy for recurrent LA/mBC. Patients were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2023 and randomized to either the triplet combination of inavolisib with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 161) or the doublet therapy of placebo with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 164) until discontinuation due to progressive disease or toxicity.
At the analysis cutoff date at the end of September, 57.8% of patients in the experimental triple therapy arm and 70.1% in the doublet arm had discontinued treatment. In addition, “7.5% versus 11.6% of patients died without subsequent therapy,” said Dr. Juric, and 40.4% of those in the triplet arm, and 50% in the doublet arm received subsequent therapy.
In the expanded analysis, at a median follow-up of 21.3 months, the triplet combination was associated with a PFS2 benefit of 8.9 months over the doublet – meaning patients had 24 months versus 15.1 months from randomization to end of next-line treatment (HR = 0.54). There was a similar benefit in time to first chemotherapy.
Hyperglycemia, diarrhea, rash, and mucosal effects are a known toxicity of PI3K inhibition and were experienced more frequently in the inavolisib arm compared with the placebo arm: (59% vs 9%; 48% vs 16%; 25% vs 17%; and 51% vs 27% respectively). However, “in the vast majority of patients these AEs were experienced in a grade 1 or grade 2 level,” and had resolved by the cutoff date, said Dr. Juric.
There was a 6.2% rate of inavolisib discontinuation due to AEs, but most AEs could be managed with “common approaches” such as metformin for hyperglycemia, loperamide for diarrhea, topical hydrocortisone for rash, and steroid mouthwash for stomatitis/mucosal inflammation, he added.
Patients in the triple treatment arm experienced a longer interval before pain worsened, a median of 30.9 versus 18.1 months, and patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life measures showed no decrease with the addition of inavolisib, Dr. Juric reported.
Rationale for Using PFS2 as Endpoint
The PFS2 endpoint has emerged with studies of targeted cancer therapies, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, in Atlanta, said in an interview.
“Presenting PFS2 is not a new thing — we’ve been doing this in other breast cancer studies (of CDK4/6 inhibitors),” said Dr. Kalinsky, a coauthor of the study. “The concern is that you give a drug, and then, after that, things grow so rapidly that then you’re actually not benefiting the patient.
“If you’re giving a targeted agent in the first-line, then the biology changes after that first-line, are you really even making a difference? Or is the drug so toxic that they’re not able to tolerate a next line of treatment?” Dr. Kalinsky continued. “So that’s really the intent of PFS2. The PFS2 included the next line of treatment, so it’s really a first, and second-line representation of treatment. The study presented at ASCO was really about toxicity.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Juric disclosed having stock and other ownership interests in PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech, Lilly, MapKure, Novartis, Pfizer, PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; and research funding from Amgen, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Eisai, Genentech, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, InventisBio, Novartis, Pfizer, Ribon Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for inavolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant based on initial results of the study presented at a December 2023 meeting. The phase 3 results showed the inavolisib-based regimen more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the two other drugs alone as first-line treatment, researchers reported.
The expanded analysis of the trial, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looked at additional endpoints, including PFS2 (defined as time from randomization to end of next-line treatment), time to first chemotherapy, key adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
“Triple combination of inavolisib, a novel PI3K inhibitor, with palbociclib and fulvestrant, resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS (15.0 vs 7.3 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, P less than .0001),” lead investigator Dejan Juric, MD, reported at the meeting, referring to the initial results.
In additional endpoints, the inavolisib-based triplet also “sustained benefit beyond disease progression, delay in chemotherapy initiation, a manageable safety profile, prolonged time to deterioration in pain severity, and maintained quality of life, supporting the overall conclusion that this triple combination is a promising new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutated HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer,” said the oncologist, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 325 patients whose disease had progressed during or within 12 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen and who had not received prior systemic therapy for recurrent LA/mBC. Patients were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2023 and randomized to either the triplet combination of inavolisib with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 161) or the doublet therapy of placebo with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 164) until discontinuation due to progressive disease or toxicity.
At the analysis cutoff date at the end of September, 57.8% of patients in the experimental triple therapy arm and 70.1% in the doublet arm had discontinued treatment. In addition, “7.5% versus 11.6% of patients died without subsequent therapy,” said Dr. Juric, and 40.4% of those in the triplet arm, and 50% in the doublet arm received subsequent therapy.
In the expanded analysis, at a median follow-up of 21.3 months, the triplet combination was associated with a PFS2 benefit of 8.9 months over the doublet – meaning patients had 24 months versus 15.1 months from randomization to end of next-line treatment (HR = 0.54). There was a similar benefit in time to first chemotherapy.
Hyperglycemia, diarrhea, rash, and mucosal effects are a known toxicity of PI3K inhibition and were experienced more frequently in the inavolisib arm compared with the placebo arm: (59% vs 9%; 48% vs 16%; 25% vs 17%; and 51% vs 27% respectively). However, “in the vast majority of patients these AEs were experienced in a grade 1 or grade 2 level,” and had resolved by the cutoff date, said Dr. Juric.
There was a 6.2% rate of inavolisib discontinuation due to AEs, but most AEs could be managed with “common approaches” such as metformin for hyperglycemia, loperamide for diarrhea, topical hydrocortisone for rash, and steroid mouthwash for stomatitis/mucosal inflammation, he added.
Patients in the triple treatment arm experienced a longer interval before pain worsened, a median of 30.9 versus 18.1 months, and patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life measures showed no decrease with the addition of inavolisib, Dr. Juric reported.
Rationale for Using PFS2 as Endpoint
The PFS2 endpoint has emerged with studies of targeted cancer therapies, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, in Atlanta, said in an interview.
“Presenting PFS2 is not a new thing — we’ve been doing this in other breast cancer studies (of CDK4/6 inhibitors),” said Dr. Kalinsky, a coauthor of the study. “The concern is that you give a drug, and then, after that, things grow so rapidly that then you’re actually not benefiting the patient.
“If you’re giving a targeted agent in the first-line, then the biology changes after that first-line, are you really even making a difference? Or is the drug so toxic that they’re not able to tolerate a next line of treatment?” Dr. Kalinsky continued. “So that’s really the intent of PFS2. The PFS2 included the next line of treatment, so it’s really a first, and second-line representation of treatment. The study presented at ASCO was really about toxicity.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Juric disclosed having stock and other ownership interests in PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech, Lilly, MapKure, Novartis, Pfizer, PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; and research funding from Amgen, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Eisai, Genentech, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, InventisBio, Novartis, Pfizer, Ribon Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for inavolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant based on initial results of the study presented at a December 2023 meeting. The phase 3 results showed the inavolisib-based regimen more than doubled progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the two other drugs alone as first-line treatment, researchers reported.
The expanded analysis of the trial, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looked at additional endpoints, including PFS2 (defined as time from randomization to end of next-line treatment), time to first chemotherapy, key adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
“Triple combination of inavolisib, a novel PI3K inhibitor, with palbociclib and fulvestrant, resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS (15.0 vs 7.3 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, P less than .0001),” lead investigator Dejan Juric, MD, reported at the meeting, referring to the initial results.
In additional endpoints, the inavolisib-based triplet also “sustained benefit beyond disease progression, delay in chemotherapy initiation, a manageable safety profile, prolonged time to deterioration in pain severity, and maintained quality of life, supporting the overall conclusion that this triple combination is a promising new treatment option for patients with PIK3CA-mutated HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer,” said the oncologist, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Methods and Results
The trial enrolled 325 patients whose disease had progressed during or within 12 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen and who had not received prior systemic therapy for recurrent LA/mBC. Patients were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2023 and randomized to either the triplet combination of inavolisib with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 161) or the doublet therapy of placebo with palbociclib and fulvestrant (n = 164) until discontinuation due to progressive disease or toxicity.
At the analysis cutoff date at the end of September, 57.8% of patients in the experimental triple therapy arm and 70.1% in the doublet arm had discontinued treatment. In addition, “7.5% versus 11.6% of patients died without subsequent therapy,” said Dr. Juric, and 40.4% of those in the triplet arm, and 50% in the doublet arm received subsequent therapy.
In the expanded analysis, at a median follow-up of 21.3 months, the triplet combination was associated with a PFS2 benefit of 8.9 months over the doublet – meaning patients had 24 months versus 15.1 months from randomization to end of next-line treatment (HR = 0.54). There was a similar benefit in time to first chemotherapy.
Hyperglycemia, diarrhea, rash, and mucosal effects are a known toxicity of PI3K inhibition and were experienced more frequently in the inavolisib arm compared with the placebo arm: (59% vs 9%; 48% vs 16%; 25% vs 17%; and 51% vs 27% respectively). However, “in the vast majority of patients these AEs were experienced in a grade 1 or grade 2 level,” and had resolved by the cutoff date, said Dr. Juric.
There was a 6.2% rate of inavolisib discontinuation due to AEs, but most AEs could be managed with “common approaches” such as metformin for hyperglycemia, loperamide for diarrhea, topical hydrocortisone for rash, and steroid mouthwash for stomatitis/mucosal inflammation, he added.
Patients in the triple treatment arm experienced a longer interval before pain worsened, a median of 30.9 versus 18.1 months, and patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life measures showed no decrease with the addition of inavolisib, Dr. Juric reported.
Rationale for Using PFS2 as Endpoint
The PFS2 endpoint has emerged with studies of targeted cancer therapies, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, in Atlanta, said in an interview.
“Presenting PFS2 is not a new thing — we’ve been doing this in other breast cancer studies (of CDK4/6 inhibitors),” said Dr. Kalinsky, a coauthor of the study. “The concern is that you give a drug, and then, after that, things grow so rapidly that then you’re actually not benefiting the patient.
“If you’re giving a targeted agent in the first-line, then the biology changes after that first-line, are you really even making a difference? Or is the drug so toxic that they’re not able to tolerate a next line of treatment?” Dr. Kalinsky continued. “So that’s really the intent of PFS2. The PFS2 included the next line of treatment, so it’s really a first, and second-line representation of treatment. The study presented at ASCO was really about toxicity.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Juric disclosed having stock and other ownership interests in PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genentech, Lilly, MapKure, Novartis, Pfizer, PIC Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, and Vibliome Therapeutics; and research funding from Amgen, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Eisai, Genentech, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, InventisBio, Novartis, Pfizer, Ribon Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.
FROM ASCO 2024
One Patient Changed This Oncologist’s View of Hope. Here’s How.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
ChatGPT Enhances Readability of Cancer Information for Patients
TOPLINE:
The artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT can significantly improve the readability of online cancer-related patient information while maintaining the content’s quality, a recent study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with cancer often search for cancer information online after their diagnosis, with most seeking information from their oncologists’ websites. However, the online materials often exceed the average reading level of the US population, limiting accessibility and comprehension.
- Researchers asked ChatGPT 4.0 to rewrite content about breast, colon, lung, prostate, and pancreas cancer, aiming for a sixth-grade readability level. The content came from a random sample of documents from 34 patient-facing websites associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions.
- Readability, accuracy, similarity, and quality of the rewritten content were assessed using several established metrics and tools, including an F1 score, which assesses the precision and recall of a machine-learning model; a cosine similarity score, which measures similarities and is often used to detect plagiarism; and the DISCERN instrument, which helps assess the quality of the AI-rewritten information.
- The primary outcome was the mean readability score for the original and AI-generated content.
TAKEAWAY:
- The original content had an average readability level equivalent to a university freshman (grade 13). Following the AI revision, the readability level improved to a high school freshman level (grade 9).
- The rewritten content had high accuracy, with an overall F1 score of 0.87 (a good score is 0.8-0.9).
- The rewritten content had a high cosine similarity score of 0.915 (scores range from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating no similarity and 1 indicating complete similarity). Researchers attributed the improved readability to the use of simpler words and shorter sentences.
- Quality assessment using the DISCERN instrument showed that the AI-rewritten content maintained a “good” quality rating, similar to that of the original content.
IN PRACTICE:
Society has become increasingly dependent on online educational materials, and considering that more than half of Americans may not be literate beyond an eighth-grade level, our AI intervention offers a potential low-cost solution to narrow the gap between patient health literacy and content received from the nation’s leading cancer centers, the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andres A. Abreu, MD, with UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, was published online in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited to English-language content from NCCN member websites, so the findings may not be generalizable to other sources or languages. Readability alone cannot guarantee comprehension. Factors such as material design and audiovisual aids were not evaluated.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not report a funding source. The authors reported several disclosures but none related to the study. Herbert J. Zeh disclosed serving as a scientific advisor for Surgical Safety Technologies; Dr. Polanco disclosed serving as a consultant for Iota Biosciences and Palisade Bio and as a proctor for Intuitive Surgical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT can significantly improve the readability of online cancer-related patient information while maintaining the content’s quality, a recent study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with cancer often search for cancer information online after their diagnosis, with most seeking information from their oncologists’ websites. However, the online materials often exceed the average reading level of the US population, limiting accessibility and comprehension.
- Researchers asked ChatGPT 4.0 to rewrite content about breast, colon, lung, prostate, and pancreas cancer, aiming for a sixth-grade readability level. The content came from a random sample of documents from 34 patient-facing websites associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions.
- Readability, accuracy, similarity, and quality of the rewritten content were assessed using several established metrics and tools, including an F1 score, which assesses the precision and recall of a machine-learning model; a cosine similarity score, which measures similarities and is often used to detect plagiarism; and the DISCERN instrument, which helps assess the quality of the AI-rewritten information.
- The primary outcome was the mean readability score for the original and AI-generated content.
TAKEAWAY:
- The original content had an average readability level equivalent to a university freshman (grade 13). Following the AI revision, the readability level improved to a high school freshman level (grade 9).
- The rewritten content had high accuracy, with an overall F1 score of 0.87 (a good score is 0.8-0.9).
- The rewritten content had a high cosine similarity score of 0.915 (scores range from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating no similarity and 1 indicating complete similarity). Researchers attributed the improved readability to the use of simpler words and shorter sentences.
- Quality assessment using the DISCERN instrument showed that the AI-rewritten content maintained a “good” quality rating, similar to that of the original content.
IN PRACTICE:
Society has become increasingly dependent on online educational materials, and considering that more than half of Americans may not be literate beyond an eighth-grade level, our AI intervention offers a potential low-cost solution to narrow the gap between patient health literacy and content received from the nation’s leading cancer centers, the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andres A. Abreu, MD, with UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, was published online in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited to English-language content from NCCN member websites, so the findings may not be generalizable to other sources or languages. Readability alone cannot guarantee comprehension. Factors such as material design and audiovisual aids were not evaluated.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not report a funding source. The authors reported several disclosures but none related to the study. Herbert J. Zeh disclosed serving as a scientific advisor for Surgical Safety Technologies; Dr. Polanco disclosed serving as a consultant for Iota Biosciences and Palisade Bio and as a proctor for Intuitive Surgical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT can significantly improve the readability of online cancer-related patient information while maintaining the content’s quality, a recent study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with cancer often search for cancer information online after their diagnosis, with most seeking information from their oncologists’ websites. However, the online materials often exceed the average reading level of the US population, limiting accessibility and comprehension.
- Researchers asked ChatGPT 4.0 to rewrite content about breast, colon, lung, prostate, and pancreas cancer, aiming for a sixth-grade readability level. The content came from a random sample of documents from 34 patient-facing websites associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions.
- Readability, accuracy, similarity, and quality of the rewritten content were assessed using several established metrics and tools, including an F1 score, which assesses the precision and recall of a machine-learning model; a cosine similarity score, which measures similarities and is often used to detect plagiarism; and the DISCERN instrument, which helps assess the quality of the AI-rewritten information.
- The primary outcome was the mean readability score for the original and AI-generated content.
TAKEAWAY:
- The original content had an average readability level equivalent to a university freshman (grade 13). Following the AI revision, the readability level improved to a high school freshman level (grade 9).
- The rewritten content had high accuracy, with an overall F1 score of 0.87 (a good score is 0.8-0.9).
- The rewritten content had a high cosine similarity score of 0.915 (scores range from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating no similarity and 1 indicating complete similarity). Researchers attributed the improved readability to the use of simpler words and shorter sentences.
- Quality assessment using the DISCERN instrument showed that the AI-rewritten content maintained a “good” quality rating, similar to that of the original content.
IN PRACTICE:
Society has become increasingly dependent on online educational materials, and considering that more than half of Americans may not be literate beyond an eighth-grade level, our AI intervention offers a potential low-cost solution to narrow the gap between patient health literacy and content received from the nation’s leading cancer centers, the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andres A. Abreu, MD, with UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, was published online in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited to English-language content from NCCN member websites, so the findings may not be generalizable to other sources or languages. Readability alone cannot guarantee comprehension. Factors such as material design and audiovisual aids were not evaluated.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not report a funding source. The authors reported several disclosures but none related to the study. Herbert J. Zeh disclosed serving as a scientific advisor for Surgical Safety Technologies; Dr. Polanco disclosed serving as a consultant for Iota Biosciences and Palisade Bio and as a proctor for Intuitive Surgical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Expands Durvalumab Label to Endometrial Cancer
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Originally approved in 2017, the programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor caries previously approved indications for non–small cell lung cancer, biliary tract cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Approval of the new indication was based on the phase 3 DUO-E trial, which included 95 women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients were randomized to durvalumab 1120 mg or placebo with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles followed by durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks until disease progression.
Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7 months in the placebo arm but not reached in the durvalumab group. Overall survival outcomes were immature at the PFS analysis.
A quarter or more of durvalumab patients experienced peripheral neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, abdominal pain, constipation, rash, diarrhea, vomiting, and cough.
The recommended treatment regimen for dMMR endometrial cancer in women who weigh ≥ 30 kg is 1120 mg with carboplatin plus paclitaxel every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by single-agent durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks.
The price of 2.4 mL of durvalumab at a concentration of 50 mg/mL is $1027, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Surviving to Thriving: Enhancing Quality of Life in Breast Cancer
Advances in breast cancer detection and treatment over the past decades have led to an increase in the number of women diagnosed at earlier stages and successfully treated, ushering in a new era of survivorship.
According to the American Cancer Society, there are currently roughly four million breast cancer survivors in the United States, including those still receiving treatment. The mortality rates for women with breast cancer have been decreasing since 1989, with an overall decline of 42% through 2021.
As the population of breast cancer survivors continues to grow, developing and delivering comprehensive survivorship care is crucial, Thelma Brown told attendees at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting. Ms. Brown’s talk was part of an educational session focused on addressing issues among early breast cancer survivors, evolving practices in breast cancer surveillance, and mitigating recurrence risk.
The challenges following breast cancer diagnosis and treatment can be both visible and invisible, said Ms. Brown, a patient advocate and member of the Breast Cancer Working Group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Up to 90% of early breast cancer survivors experience long-term effects from treatment, which often include fatigue, loss of mobility, chronic pain, peripheral neuropathy, lymphedema, and infertility.
Survivors face an elevated risk for depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence. “Fear of recurrence is a big issue, and it’s almost universal,” she noted.
Cancer treatment is also costly, leading to financial toxicity for many patients, which also “affects adherence to treatment and overall family well-being,” Ms. Brown explained. Survivors may struggle to access financial assistance due to complex eligibility requirements and a lack of awareness about available resources.
There is a need for holistic and coordinated survivorship care that includes management of long-term effects and surveillance for recurrence to help breast cancer survivors to transition from merely surviving to thriving, said Ms. Brown.
Surveilling and Mitigating Recurrence
Surveillance in patients with breast cancer post treatment remains a debated area, particularly when it comes to detecting distant recurrences, David Cescon, MD, PhD, with Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, said in his talk.
While breast imaging standards are well established, systemic surveillance through imaging and laboratory tests for asymptomatic patients lacks consensus and uniform guidelines, he explained.
Several clinical trials conducted from the late 1980s to the early 2000s showed no survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies, including imaging and laboratory tests, compared to routine clinical follow-up. Some studies even demonstrated a trend toward harm, given the number of false positives.
These studies formed the basis for guidelines that discourage surveillance among asymptomatic survivors. Currently, no major guideline organization — the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, ASCO, and the European Society for Medical Oncology — recommends routine (nonbreast) radiologic surveillance or laboratory tests for detecting asymptomatic distant breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Cescon said.
Yet, that may change in the coming years, he told attendees.
Ongoing prospective studies will hopefully generate high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of modern surveillance techniques, particularly detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its effect on survival and quality of life, said Dr. Cescon.
These liquid biopsy assays have shown promise in identifying minimal residual disease before radiographic recurrence, he explained. Retrospective studies suggest high prognostic value, with nearly all patients with detectable ctDNA post therapy experiencing recurrence.
He cautioned, however, that while sensitive ctDNA tests exist and have clinical validity in identifying minimal residual disease, “their clinical utility has not yet been demonstrated,” Dr. Cescon said, adding that any surveillance strategy must consider the psychological effect of frequent testing and the potential for false positives or negatives.
The ultimate goal is preventing disease recurrence, said Neil M. Iyengar, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in his talk on mitigating recurrence risk.
Lifestyle modifications are an important targeted intervention for patients entering the survivorship phase, with a “robust level of evidence” supporting their use to mitigate adverse effects associated with cancer therapy and improve quality of life, he told attendees. Most notably, smoking cessation, healthy dietary patterns, physical activity, and reduced alcohol have been associated with improvements in breast cancer outcomes.
Going forward, it will be important to “understand the antitumor potential of lifestyle modification and how we can wield this type of intervention as a precision tool to potentially enhance the effects of cancer therapy and potentially cancer biology,” said Dr. Iyengar.
Ms. Brown disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca. Dr. Cescon disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. Dr. Iyengar disclosed relationships with Curio Science, DAVA Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Advances in breast cancer detection and treatment over the past decades have led to an increase in the number of women diagnosed at earlier stages and successfully treated, ushering in a new era of survivorship.
According to the American Cancer Society, there are currently roughly four million breast cancer survivors in the United States, including those still receiving treatment. The mortality rates for women with breast cancer have been decreasing since 1989, with an overall decline of 42% through 2021.
As the population of breast cancer survivors continues to grow, developing and delivering comprehensive survivorship care is crucial, Thelma Brown told attendees at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting. Ms. Brown’s talk was part of an educational session focused on addressing issues among early breast cancer survivors, evolving practices in breast cancer surveillance, and mitigating recurrence risk.
The challenges following breast cancer diagnosis and treatment can be both visible and invisible, said Ms. Brown, a patient advocate and member of the Breast Cancer Working Group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Up to 90% of early breast cancer survivors experience long-term effects from treatment, which often include fatigue, loss of mobility, chronic pain, peripheral neuropathy, lymphedema, and infertility.
Survivors face an elevated risk for depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence. “Fear of recurrence is a big issue, and it’s almost universal,” she noted.
Cancer treatment is also costly, leading to financial toxicity for many patients, which also “affects adherence to treatment and overall family well-being,” Ms. Brown explained. Survivors may struggle to access financial assistance due to complex eligibility requirements and a lack of awareness about available resources.
There is a need for holistic and coordinated survivorship care that includes management of long-term effects and surveillance for recurrence to help breast cancer survivors to transition from merely surviving to thriving, said Ms. Brown.
Surveilling and Mitigating Recurrence
Surveillance in patients with breast cancer post treatment remains a debated area, particularly when it comes to detecting distant recurrences, David Cescon, MD, PhD, with Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, said in his talk.
While breast imaging standards are well established, systemic surveillance through imaging and laboratory tests for asymptomatic patients lacks consensus and uniform guidelines, he explained.
Several clinical trials conducted from the late 1980s to the early 2000s showed no survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies, including imaging and laboratory tests, compared to routine clinical follow-up. Some studies even demonstrated a trend toward harm, given the number of false positives.
These studies formed the basis for guidelines that discourage surveillance among asymptomatic survivors. Currently, no major guideline organization — the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, ASCO, and the European Society for Medical Oncology — recommends routine (nonbreast) radiologic surveillance or laboratory tests for detecting asymptomatic distant breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Cescon said.
Yet, that may change in the coming years, he told attendees.
Ongoing prospective studies will hopefully generate high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of modern surveillance techniques, particularly detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its effect on survival and quality of life, said Dr. Cescon.
These liquid biopsy assays have shown promise in identifying minimal residual disease before radiographic recurrence, he explained. Retrospective studies suggest high prognostic value, with nearly all patients with detectable ctDNA post therapy experiencing recurrence.
He cautioned, however, that while sensitive ctDNA tests exist and have clinical validity in identifying minimal residual disease, “their clinical utility has not yet been demonstrated,” Dr. Cescon said, adding that any surveillance strategy must consider the psychological effect of frequent testing and the potential for false positives or negatives.
The ultimate goal is preventing disease recurrence, said Neil M. Iyengar, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in his talk on mitigating recurrence risk.
Lifestyle modifications are an important targeted intervention for patients entering the survivorship phase, with a “robust level of evidence” supporting their use to mitigate adverse effects associated with cancer therapy and improve quality of life, he told attendees. Most notably, smoking cessation, healthy dietary patterns, physical activity, and reduced alcohol have been associated with improvements in breast cancer outcomes.
Going forward, it will be important to “understand the antitumor potential of lifestyle modification and how we can wield this type of intervention as a precision tool to potentially enhance the effects of cancer therapy and potentially cancer biology,” said Dr. Iyengar.
Ms. Brown disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca. Dr. Cescon disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. Dr. Iyengar disclosed relationships with Curio Science, DAVA Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Advances in breast cancer detection and treatment over the past decades have led to an increase in the number of women diagnosed at earlier stages and successfully treated, ushering in a new era of survivorship.
According to the American Cancer Society, there are currently roughly four million breast cancer survivors in the United States, including those still receiving treatment. The mortality rates for women with breast cancer have been decreasing since 1989, with an overall decline of 42% through 2021.
As the population of breast cancer survivors continues to grow, developing and delivering comprehensive survivorship care is crucial, Thelma Brown told attendees at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting. Ms. Brown’s talk was part of an educational session focused on addressing issues among early breast cancer survivors, evolving practices in breast cancer surveillance, and mitigating recurrence risk.
The challenges following breast cancer diagnosis and treatment can be both visible and invisible, said Ms. Brown, a patient advocate and member of the Breast Cancer Working Group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Up to 90% of early breast cancer survivors experience long-term effects from treatment, which often include fatigue, loss of mobility, chronic pain, peripheral neuropathy, lymphedema, and infertility.
Survivors face an elevated risk for depression, anxiety, and fear of recurrence. “Fear of recurrence is a big issue, and it’s almost universal,” she noted.
Cancer treatment is also costly, leading to financial toxicity for many patients, which also “affects adherence to treatment and overall family well-being,” Ms. Brown explained. Survivors may struggle to access financial assistance due to complex eligibility requirements and a lack of awareness about available resources.
There is a need for holistic and coordinated survivorship care that includes management of long-term effects and surveillance for recurrence to help breast cancer survivors to transition from merely surviving to thriving, said Ms. Brown.
Surveilling and Mitigating Recurrence
Surveillance in patients with breast cancer post treatment remains a debated area, particularly when it comes to detecting distant recurrences, David Cescon, MD, PhD, with Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, said in his talk.
While breast imaging standards are well established, systemic surveillance through imaging and laboratory tests for asymptomatic patients lacks consensus and uniform guidelines, he explained.
Several clinical trials conducted from the late 1980s to the early 2000s showed no survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies, including imaging and laboratory tests, compared to routine clinical follow-up. Some studies even demonstrated a trend toward harm, given the number of false positives.
These studies formed the basis for guidelines that discourage surveillance among asymptomatic survivors. Currently, no major guideline organization — the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, ASCO, and the European Society for Medical Oncology — recommends routine (nonbreast) radiologic surveillance or laboratory tests for detecting asymptomatic distant breast cancer recurrence, Dr. Cescon said.
Yet, that may change in the coming years, he told attendees.
Ongoing prospective studies will hopefully generate high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of modern surveillance techniques, particularly detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its effect on survival and quality of life, said Dr. Cescon.
These liquid biopsy assays have shown promise in identifying minimal residual disease before radiographic recurrence, he explained. Retrospective studies suggest high prognostic value, with nearly all patients with detectable ctDNA post therapy experiencing recurrence.
He cautioned, however, that while sensitive ctDNA tests exist and have clinical validity in identifying minimal residual disease, “their clinical utility has not yet been demonstrated,” Dr. Cescon said, adding that any surveillance strategy must consider the psychological effect of frequent testing and the potential for false positives or negatives.
The ultimate goal is preventing disease recurrence, said Neil M. Iyengar, MD, with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, in his talk on mitigating recurrence risk.
Lifestyle modifications are an important targeted intervention for patients entering the survivorship phase, with a “robust level of evidence” supporting their use to mitigate adverse effects associated with cancer therapy and improve quality of life, he told attendees. Most notably, smoking cessation, healthy dietary patterns, physical activity, and reduced alcohol have been associated with improvements in breast cancer outcomes.
Going forward, it will be important to “understand the antitumor potential of lifestyle modification and how we can wield this type of intervention as a precision tool to potentially enhance the effects of cancer therapy and potentially cancer biology,” said Dr. Iyengar.
Ms. Brown disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca. Dr. Cescon disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. Dr. Iyengar disclosed relationships with Curio Science, DAVA Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
FDA Expands Repotrectinib Label to All NTRK Gene Fusion+ Solid Tumors
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Engineering Mind Helps Investigator Develop New Cancer Therapies
Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.
Using molecular profiling and patient-derived xenografts, Dr. Kopetz discovered resistance mechanisms and helped develop approaches to overcome such resistant pathways. His clinical studies analyzing vemurafenib, cetuximab, and irinotecan resulted in new additions to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and led to the FDA approval of encorafenib plus cetuximab for adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) with a BRAF V600E mutation after prior therapy.
In an interview, Dr. Kopetz shared his unique road to research, how his engineering background influences his work, and why his recent award’s namesake holds special significance to him.
What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?
Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.
I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.
One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?
Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.
While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?
Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.
I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.
Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.
The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.
Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.
The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
Does your engineering background impact your work today?
Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.
Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.
These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?
Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.
It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.
Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.
Using molecular profiling and patient-derived xenografts, Dr. Kopetz discovered resistance mechanisms and helped develop approaches to overcome such resistant pathways. His clinical studies analyzing vemurafenib, cetuximab, and irinotecan resulted in new additions to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and led to the FDA approval of encorafenib plus cetuximab for adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) with a BRAF V600E mutation after prior therapy.
In an interview, Dr. Kopetz shared his unique road to research, how his engineering background influences his work, and why his recent award’s namesake holds special significance to him.
What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?
Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.
I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.
One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?
Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.
While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?
Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.
I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.
Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.
The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.
Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.
The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
Does your engineering background impact your work today?
Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.
Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.
These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?
Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.
It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.
Dr. Kopetz received the AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award in April. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) granted Dr. Kopetz this award to recognize his leadership in the development of novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer with poor prognoses, according to a statement from the AACR.
Using molecular profiling and patient-derived xenografts, Dr. Kopetz discovered resistance mechanisms and helped develop approaches to overcome such resistant pathways. His clinical studies analyzing vemurafenib, cetuximab, and irinotecan resulted in new additions to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and led to the FDA approval of encorafenib plus cetuximab for adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) with a BRAF V600E mutation after prior therapy.
In an interview, Dr. Kopetz shared his unique road to research, how his engineering background influences his work, and why his recent award’s namesake holds special significance to him.
What led to your medical career? Growing up, did you always want to be a doctor?
Dr. Kopetz: My interest initially was in engineering. I grew up in Tennessee from a family of engineers and doctors. In college, I completed a degree in biomedical engineering and electrical engineering.
I had the opportunity to spend one summer at the National Institutes of Health, where I did some research on the structure of the HIV integrase enzyme. It was fundamental basic research with some engineering overlay and required spending 4 days a week working in the dark in a laser lab to analyze the structure of this protein.
One day a week, I was at Georgetown in the HIV/AIDS Clinic, where I collected blood samples and saw HIV/AIDS patients. At the end of the summer, I reflected and realized that I really enjoyed that 1 day out of the week, much more than the other 4. I enjoyed working with patients and interacting with people and thought I’d enjoy the more direct way to help patients, so made a pivot into medicine.
Was the rest of your medical training more traditional?
Dr. Kopetz: My path was a little atypical for a physician scientist. I pursued a medical degree at Johns Hopkins, did internal medicine training at Duke, and then came down to MD Anderson Cancer Center [in Houston, Texas] to do a fellowship in medical oncology, and also obtained a PhD in cancer biology, where I explored mechanisms of resistance to colorectal cancer treatment.
While a traditional physician scientist typically obtains a PhD training in the middle of their medical school, I completed my medical training and then went back to get a PhD. It was a different, nontraditional route.
What is your current role, and what is most inspiring about your work?
Dr. Kopetz: I’ve been at MD Anderson now for 20 years in GI medical oncology. I recently stepped into a new role of helping facilitate translational research at the institution and am now Associate VP for translational research.
I’m excited about where we are in cancer research. I think we’re moving into an era where the amount of information that we can get out of patients and the rapidity in which we can move discoveries is much greater than it has ever been.
Our ability to extract information out of patient biopsies, surgical samples, or even minimally invasive techniques to sample the tumors, such as liquid biopsy, has provided tremendous insights into how tumors are evolving and adapting to therapies and [provides us] opportunities for novel interventions. This opens up ways where I think as a field, we can more readily accelerate our understanding of cancer.
The second component is seeing the rapidity in which we’re now able to execute ideas in the drug development space compared to years before. The pace of new drug development has increased and the innovations in the chemistries have opened up new opportunities and new targets that in the past were considered undruggable. For example, the mutated oncogene, KRAS, was once an extremely challenging therapeutic target and considered undruggable. Mutations in the p53 gene, a tumor suppressor gene, were similarly challenging. I think the convergence of these two trends are going to more rapidly accelerate the advances for our patients. I’m optimistic about the future.
Tell us more about the novel therapies for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer for which you were a lead researcher.
Dr. Kopetz: A lot of [my] work goes back over 10 years, where my [research colleagues and I] were targeting the BRAF V600E oncogene in colorectal cancer melanoma and identified that this worked well in melanoma but was relatively inactive in colorectal cancer despite the same drugs and the same mutations. This led to a recognition of optimal combination drugs that really blocked some of the adaptive feedback that we saw in colorectal cancer. This was a key recognition that these tumors, after you block one node of signaling, rapidly adapt and reactivate the signaling through alternate nodes. This finding really resonated with me with my engineering background, thinking about the networks, signaling networks, and the concepts of feedback regulation of complex systems.
The strategy of blocking the primary oncogene and then blocking the feedback mechanisms that the tumors were utilizing was adopted in colorectal cancer through this work. It took us 10 years to get to an FDA approval with this strategy, but it’s really encouraging that we’re now using this strategy and applying it to the new wave of KRAS inhibitors, where the exact same feedback pathway appears to be at play.
Does your engineering background impact your work today?
Dr. Kopetz: Yes, I’ve found that my engineering training has provided me with complementary skills that can significantly contribute to the development of innovative technologies, computational approaches, and interdisciplinary strategies for advancing cancer research.
Today, I do a lot of work understanding and recognizing complex networks of signaling, and it’s the same network theories that we learned and developed in engineering.
These same theories are now being applied to biology. For example, we are very interested in how tumors adapt over the longer term, over multiple lines of therapy, where there is both clonal selection and clonal evolution occurring with our various standard-of-care therapies. Our hope is that application of engineering principles can help uncover new vulnerabilities in cancer that weren’t evident when we were thinking about CRC as a static tumor.
I understand your recently awarded AACR-Waun Ki Hong Award for Outstanding Achievement in Translational and Clinical Cancer Research has special significance to you. Can you explain why that is?
Dr. Kopetz: This holds a special meaning for me, because Dr. Hong provided a lot of guidance [to me] over the years. He was the division head for cancer medicine at MD Anderson for many years and was instrumental in helping advocate [for me] and advance my career as well as the careers of so many others in and outside of the institution. I considered him a key mentor and sponsor. He helped provide me with guidance early in my oncology career, helping me identify high-value projects and critically evaluate research directions to pursue. He also helped me think about how to balance my research portfolio and provided guidance about how to work well within a team.
It’s really humbling to have a reward bearing his name as somebody who I so deeply respected, and I’m so grateful for the impact he had on my life.
Ovarian Cancer Risk Doubled by Estrogen-Only HRT
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.
Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)
In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.
Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen
At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.
Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).
Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”
Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change
The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.
In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.
“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.
“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.
Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.
“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.
Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.
“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”
Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”
These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”
When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”
Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
FROM ASCO 2024
Chemo May Benefit Some Older Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
Pancreatic cancer is most often diagnosed in adults aged 65 years or older. Providing cancer treatment for this older, often vulnerable, population comes with significant challenges and can lead to worse survival.
To examine real-world outcomes of older adults with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer, researchers recruited patients aged 70 years or older and performed a geriatric assessment to identify comorbidities, cognitive issues, and other geriatric abnormalities.
Those who were deemed “fit” (ie, with no geriatric abnormalities) were assigned to receive off-study standard-of-care treatment, whereas those classified as “frail” (ie, with severe abnormalities) received off-study supportive care.
The remaining 176 “vulnerable” patients with mild to moderate geriatric abnormalities completed a geriatric and quality-of-life assessment and were then randomly assigned to receive either dose-reduced 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin plus liposomal irinotecan (n = 88) or modified gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 88) every 2 weeks. Ultimately, 79 patients started the 5-FU combination and 75 received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients were assessed every 8 weeks until disease progression or intolerance.
Overall, patients had a median age of 77 years; 61.9% were aged 75 years or older. About half were female, and 81.5% were White. The majority (87.5%) had a performance status of 0 or 1.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median overall survival was 4.7 months in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel arm and 4.4 months in the 5-FU combination group, with no significant survival difference observed between the two arms (P = .72).
- When the overall survival analysis was restricted to patients who received at least 4 weeks, or two cycles, of treatment (about 62% of patients), the median overall survival across the two treatment arms reached 8.0 months, in line with expectations for these regimens.
- Patient stratification revealed that those with a performance status of 2 had significantly worse overall survival than those with a status of 0: 1.4 months vs 6.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 2.77; P < .001). A similar divide was seen when patients were stratified by physical/functional status and well-being. Age, however, did not significantly influence the results.
- Overall, more than half of patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events. Just over 38% of patients received only one to three cycles of therapy, whereas 26% remained on treatment for 12 or more cycles. The adverse event rates were similar between the two regimens, but the toxicity profile was slightly different — the researchers, for instance, observed more peripheral neuropathy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and more diarrhea in the 5-FU combination arm.
IN PRACTICE:
- Overall, the “survival outcomes among vulnerable older patients were lower than expected, with high percentage of patients not able to start treatment, or complete one month of therapy due to clinical deterioration,” said study presenter Efrat Dotan, MD, chief, Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia.
- “For vulnerable older adults who can tolerate treatment, these two regimens provide clinicians with options for tailoring therapy based on toxicity profile,” Dr. Dotan added. But “tools are needed to better identify patients who can benefit from treatment.”
- The results underline the need to perform geriatric assessments, as opposed to merely looking at performance status, commented David F. Chang, PhD, MS, MBBS, professor of Surgical Oncology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was not involved in the study.
SOURCE:
The research, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
LIMITATIONS:
Dr. Chang noted that the study did not reveal which treatment regimen was more effective.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Dotan declared relationships with Agenus, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Incyte, Olympus, and Taiho Pharmaceutical and institutional relationships with Dragonfly Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Ipsen, Kinnate Biopharma, Leap Therapeutics, Lilly, Lutris, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, and Zymeworks. Dr. Chang declared relationships with Immodulon Therapeutics and Mylan and institutional relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Immodulon Therapeutics, and Merck.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
Pancreatic cancer is most often diagnosed in adults aged 65 years or older. Providing cancer treatment for this older, often vulnerable, population comes with significant challenges and can lead to worse survival.
To examine real-world outcomes of older adults with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer, researchers recruited patients aged 70 years or older and performed a geriatric assessment to identify comorbidities, cognitive issues, and other geriatric abnormalities.
Those who were deemed “fit” (ie, with no geriatric abnormalities) were assigned to receive off-study standard-of-care treatment, whereas those classified as “frail” (ie, with severe abnormalities) received off-study supportive care.
The remaining 176 “vulnerable” patients with mild to moderate geriatric abnormalities completed a geriatric and quality-of-life assessment and were then randomly assigned to receive either dose-reduced 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin plus liposomal irinotecan (n = 88) or modified gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 88) every 2 weeks. Ultimately, 79 patients started the 5-FU combination and 75 received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients were assessed every 8 weeks until disease progression or intolerance.
Overall, patients had a median age of 77 years; 61.9% were aged 75 years or older. About half were female, and 81.5% were White. The majority (87.5%) had a performance status of 0 or 1.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median overall survival was 4.7 months in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel arm and 4.4 months in the 5-FU combination group, with no significant survival difference observed between the two arms (P = .72).
- When the overall survival analysis was restricted to patients who received at least 4 weeks, or two cycles, of treatment (about 62% of patients), the median overall survival across the two treatment arms reached 8.0 months, in line with expectations for these regimens.
- Patient stratification revealed that those with a performance status of 2 had significantly worse overall survival than those with a status of 0: 1.4 months vs 6.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 2.77; P < .001). A similar divide was seen when patients were stratified by physical/functional status and well-being. Age, however, did not significantly influence the results.
- Overall, more than half of patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events. Just over 38% of patients received only one to three cycles of therapy, whereas 26% remained on treatment for 12 or more cycles. The adverse event rates were similar between the two regimens, but the toxicity profile was slightly different — the researchers, for instance, observed more peripheral neuropathy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and more diarrhea in the 5-FU combination arm.
IN PRACTICE:
- Overall, the “survival outcomes among vulnerable older patients were lower than expected, with high percentage of patients not able to start treatment, or complete one month of therapy due to clinical deterioration,” said study presenter Efrat Dotan, MD, chief, Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia.
- “For vulnerable older adults who can tolerate treatment, these two regimens provide clinicians with options for tailoring therapy based on toxicity profile,” Dr. Dotan added. But “tools are needed to better identify patients who can benefit from treatment.”
- The results underline the need to perform geriatric assessments, as opposed to merely looking at performance status, commented David F. Chang, PhD, MS, MBBS, professor of Surgical Oncology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was not involved in the study.
SOURCE:
The research, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
LIMITATIONS:
Dr. Chang noted that the study did not reveal which treatment regimen was more effective.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Dotan declared relationships with Agenus, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Incyte, Olympus, and Taiho Pharmaceutical and institutional relationships with Dragonfly Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Ipsen, Kinnate Biopharma, Leap Therapeutics, Lilly, Lutris, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, and Zymeworks. Dr. Chang declared relationships with Immodulon Therapeutics and Mylan and institutional relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Immodulon Therapeutics, and Merck.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
Pancreatic cancer is most often diagnosed in adults aged 65 years or older. Providing cancer treatment for this older, often vulnerable, population comes with significant challenges and can lead to worse survival.
To examine real-world outcomes of older adults with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer, researchers recruited patients aged 70 years or older and performed a geriatric assessment to identify comorbidities, cognitive issues, and other geriatric abnormalities.
Those who were deemed “fit” (ie, with no geriatric abnormalities) were assigned to receive off-study standard-of-care treatment, whereas those classified as “frail” (ie, with severe abnormalities) received off-study supportive care.
The remaining 176 “vulnerable” patients with mild to moderate geriatric abnormalities completed a geriatric and quality-of-life assessment and were then randomly assigned to receive either dose-reduced 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin plus liposomal irinotecan (n = 88) or modified gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 88) every 2 weeks. Ultimately, 79 patients started the 5-FU combination and 75 received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Patients were assessed every 8 weeks until disease progression or intolerance.
Overall, patients had a median age of 77 years; 61.9% were aged 75 years or older. About half were female, and 81.5% were White. The majority (87.5%) had a performance status of 0 or 1.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median overall survival was 4.7 months in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel arm and 4.4 months in the 5-FU combination group, with no significant survival difference observed between the two arms (P = .72).
- When the overall survival analysis was restricted to patients who received at least 4 weeks, or two cycles, of treatment (about 62% of patients), the median overall survival across the two treatment arms reached 8.0 months, in line with expectations for these regimens.
- Patient stratification revealed that those with a performance status of 2 had significantly worse overall survival than those with a status of 0: 1.4 months vs 6.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 2.77; P < .001). A similar divide was seen when patients were stratified by physical/functional status and well-being. Age, however, did not significantly influence the results.
- Overall, more than half of patients experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events. Just over 38% of patients received only one to three cycles of therapy, whereas 26% remained on treatment for 12 or more cycles. The adverse event rates were similar between the two regimens, but the toxicity profile was slightly different — the researchers, for instance, observed more peripheral neuropathy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and more diarrhea in the 5-FU combination arm.
IN PRACTICE:
- Overall, the “survival outcomes among vulnerable older patients were lower than expected, with high percentage of patients not able to start treatment, or complete one month of therapy due to clinical deterioration,” said study presenter Efrat Dotan, MD, chief, Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia.
- “For vulnerable older adults who can tolerate treatment, these two regimens provide clinicians with options for tailoring therapy based on toxicity profile,” Dr. Dotan added. But “tools are needed to better identify patients who can benefit from treatment.”
- The results underline the need to perform geriatric assessments, as opposed to merely looking at performance status, commented David F. Chang, PhD, MS, MBBS, professor of Surgical Oncology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was not involved in the study.
SOURCE:
The research, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
LIMITATIONS:
Dr. Chang noted that the study did not reveal which treatment regimen was more effective.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Dotan declared relationships with Agenus, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Incyte, Olympus, and Taiho Pharmaceutical and institutional relationships with Dragonfly Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Ipsen, Kinnate Biopharma, Leap Therapeutics, Lilly, Lutris, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, and Zymeworks. Dr. Chang declared relationships with Immodulon Therapeutics and Mylan and institutional relationships with AstraZeneca, BMS GmbH & Co. KG, Immodulon Therapeutics, and Merck.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HPV Vaccine Offers Cancer Protection Beyond Cervical Cancer
The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.
“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”
Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.
HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.
Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).
“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.
“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.
Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.
“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”
Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.
The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.
“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”
Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.
HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.
Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).
“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.
“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.
Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.
“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”
Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.
The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.
“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”
Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.
HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.
Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).
“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.
“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.
Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.
“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”
Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.
The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM ASCO 2024