T Cell Lymphomas

Introduction
Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCL) are a heterogenous group of rare extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphomas that are caused by the accumulation of neoplastic lymphocytes in the skin.^1,2 According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, a total of 14,942 CTCL cases were recorded between 2000 and 2018.³ The incidence rate for all CTCLs is 8.55 per million and appears to be rising. The causes of such an increase are multifactorial and may be related to better diagnostic tools and increased physician awareness.

The incidence of CTCLs also increases with age. The median age at diagnosis is mid-50s but the incidence of CTCLs is 4-fold greater in patients aged 70 years and older.² Furthermore, men and Black individuals have the highest incidence rates for CTCLs.^2,3 More than 10 types of CTCLs have been identified based on biology, histopathology, and clinical features. CTCL types can be either indolent or aggressive.^1,4 Approximately 75% of all primary cutaneous lymphomas consist of CTCLs, including mycosis fungoides (MF), Sézary syndrome (SS), or CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorders (lymphomatoid papulosis and primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma).

The most common CTCL is MF, a clinically heterogeneous, often indolent disease that tends to progress over years or decades.1 This condition classically presents as cutaneous erythematous patches or plaques in sun-protected areas, ie, demonstrating a bathing suit distribution.⁵ Rarely, MF can present as or progress to more aggressive disease, with infiltrative plaques or tumors. For MF, 5- and 10-year survival ranges from 49% to 100% depending on the stage at diagnosis.¹

The most common aggressive CTCL is SS, characterized by erythroderma, intractable pruritis, and the presence of neoplastic clonal T cells (eg, Sézary cells) in the skin, peripheral blood, and/or lymph nodes, with a Sézary cell absolute count of ≥ 1,000 cells/mm³.^1,2 SS tends to progress more rapidly than MF and has a worse prognosis, with 5-year survival ranging from 10% to 50%.^1,4

Definitive Diagnosis
Diagnosis of CTCL requires the neoplastic T cells be confined to the skin.² Thus, diagnostic evaluation should involve a comprehensive physical examination, skin biopsy, and staging blood tests including a peripheral blood flow cytometry if indicated. Sometimes, radiologic imaging is needed, and if there are any abnormalities found on staging blood tests or imaging, lymph node and bone marrow biopsy may be necessary.¹

MF
MF mimics a wide variety of dermatological diseases, with nearly 50 different clinical entities in the differential, making diagnosis challenging.⁵ Clinical findings are heterogenous, and symptoms may be attributed to benign diseases, eg, eczema, or psoriasis. Pathological features may be nonspecific and subtle in the early stages of the disease and overlap with reactive processes; therefore, multiple biopsies performed during the disease course may be required to reach a definitive diagnosis. Creating a further challenge is the potential for skin-directed therapies (such as topical steroids) to interfere with pathological assessment at the time of biopsy.² Thus, obtaining a definitive diagnosis for MF, particularly in the patch or plaque stage, could take a median of 4 years but can take up to 4 decades.^2,5

A definitive diagnosis for MF can be made using clinical and histopathological features. Possible ancillary studies (if indicated) include determination of T-cell clonality by polymerase chain reaction or next-generation sequencing methods, and assessment for aberrant loss of T-cell antigen expression by immunohistochemical staining.²

SS
Clinical features of SS may be similar to erythrodermic inflammatory dermatoses, and thus the gold standard for diagnosis is peripheral blood involvement and assessing for clonally related neoplastic T-cell populations.¹ Histopathological findings on skin biopsy are often nonspecific.⁴ The currently proposed International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas criteria for SS integrate clinical, histopathological, immunophenotyping, and molecular studies.²

Benefits of a Multidisciplinary Team Care Approach
Early-stage MF with limited disease can be managed by a dermatologist, but advanced cases often benefit from a multidisciplinary team care model, including hematology-oncology, dermatology, and radiation oncology.^5,6 Several different CTCL care models exist that incorporate resource allocation, staffing availability, and institutional practices developed over time. Regardless of whether care is delivered in a specialized CTCL clinic or a community practice setting, a multidisciplinary team care approach is crucial for patients with advanced-stage CTCL. Dermatologists, hematologist-oncologists, and radiation oncologists may see a patient together or separately, depending on clinical context, and collaborate to formulate the assessment, treatment plan, and address the patient’s questions and concerns. In addition, supportive staff including patient assistance coordinators, pharmacists, behavior health specialists, and palliative care specialists may be included to address the patients’ mental health needs as considerable morbidity from pain, itching, and disfigurement occurs with MF and SS—putting patients at a greater risk for social isolation and depression.⁷

There are several benefits to using a multidisciplinary team care model for managing CTCLs. Different specialties can provide various services and treatment options for patients to consider. Dermatologists perform skin biopsies to monitor disease progression and can administer skin-directed treatments such as phototherapy; radiation oncologists can administer radiation treatment; and oncologists can administer systemic therapies that are outside the scope of dermatology.⁸ The coordination of specialty visits can improve patient satisfaction.

Treatment Goals and Disease Management
Goals for treatment include delaying progression, reducing disease burden, and improving or preserving quality of life.⁵ Decision-making for treating CTCLs should involve preserving potential active treatments for when they are needed during an extended disease course, and mitigating associated burdens of logistical, financial, and physical toxicity.¹

A variety of therapeutic modalities are available for CTCL that target tumor cells and boost antitumor responses, including topical therapies, phototherapy, radiation, chemotherapy, retinoids, and immune-modulating drugs (Table). Because no specific driver mutations have been identified for CTCLs, recent targeted therapy development has focused on various immunomodulators, small molecule inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and antibody-drug conjugates.¹ Lastly, for high-risk patients with persistent disease or disease that is refractory to multiple previous therapies, allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as a potential therapy to induce durable remission may be considered, with careful attention paid to the timing of its use as well as disease and patient characteristics.⁹ 

Table. Therapies for CTCL Care^9,10,a

Alternatively for early-stage MF, a “watch-and-wait” approach depending on the site of lesions and disease evolution may be an option, as this approach is not associated with a worsening of the disease course or survival.¹ Furthermore, aggressive treatments during early stages have not been found to modify the disease course or survival, emphasizing the need for tailoring treatments based on the extent of involvement of the skin and extracutaneous sites.^1,10 New strategies in development to treat CTCL include immune-checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies. Both strategies focus on engaging the immune system to better combat lymphoma.^11,12 

Outlook for Patients With CTCL
Using a multidisciplinary care approach is the optimal way to deliver the complex care required for CTCL.⁵ Such an approach can reduce the time to a definitive diagnosis and accurately stage and risk-stratify the disease. A stage-based treatment approach using sequential therapies in an escalated fashion can help reserve active treatments for advanced disease management and maintain quality of life for patients with CTCL.^1,2

Read more from the 2024 Rare Diseases Report: Hematology and Oncology.

Introduction
Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCL) are a heterogenous group of rare extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphomas that are caused by the accumulation of neoplastic lymphocytes in the skin.^1,2 According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, a total of 14,942 CTCL cases were recorded between 2000 and 2018.³ The incidence rate for all CTCLs is 8.55 per million and appears to be rising. The causes of such an increase are multifactorial and may be related to better diagnostic tools and increased physician awareness.

The incidence of CTCLs also increases with age. The median age at diagnosis is mid-50s but the incidence of CTCLs is 4-fold greater in patients aged 70 years and older.² Furthermore, men and Black individuals have the highest incidence rates for CTCLs.^2,3 More than 10 types of CTCLs have been identified based on biology, histopathology, and clinical features. CTCL types can be either indolent or aggressive.^1,4 Approximately 75% of all primary cutaneous lymphomas consist of CTCLs, including mycosis fungoides (MF), Sézary syndrome (SS), or CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorders (lymphomatoid papulosis and primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma).

The most common CTCL is MF, a clinically heterogeneous, often indolent disease that tends to progress over years or decades.1 This condition classically presents as cutaneous erythematous patches or plaques in sun-protected areas, ie, demonstrating a bathing suit distribution.⁵ Rarely, MF can present as or progress to more aggressive disease, with infiltrative plaques or tumors. For MF, 5- and 10-year survival ranges from 49% to 100% depending on the stage at diagnosis.¹

The most common aggressive CTCL is SS, characterized by erythroderma, intractable pruritis, and the presence of neoplastic clonal T cells (eg, Sézary cells) in the skin, peripheral blood, and/or lymph nodes, with a Sézary cell absolute count of ≥ 1,000 cells/mm³.^1,2 SS tends to progress more rapidly than MF and has a worse prognosis, with 5-year survival ranging from 10% to 50%.^1,4

Definitive Diagnosis
Diagnosis of CTCL requires the neoplastic T cells be confined to the skin.² Thus, diagnostic evaluation should involve a comprehensive physical examination, skin biopsy, and staging blood tests including a peripheral blood flow cytometry if indicated. Sometimes, radiologic imaging is needed, and if there are any abnormalities found on staging blood tests or imaging, lymph node and bone marrow biopsy may be necessary.¹

MF
MF mimics a wide variety of dermatological diseases, with nearly 50 different clinical entities in the differential, making diagnosis challenging.⁵ Clinical findings are heterogenous, and symptoms may be attributed to benign diseases, eg, eczema, or psoriasis. Pathological features may be nonspecific and subtle in the early stages of the disease and overlap with reactive processes; therefore, multiple biopsies performed during the disease course may be required to reach a definitive diagnosis. Creating a further challenge is the potential for skin-directed therapies (such as topical steroids) to interfere with pathological assessment at the time of biopsy.² Thus, obtaining a definitive diagnosis for MF, particularly in the patch or plaque stage, could take a median of 4 years but can take up to 4 decades.^2,5

A definitive diagnosis for MF can be made using clinical and histopathological features. Possible ancillary studies (if indicated) include determination of T-cell clonality by polymerase chain reaction or next-generation sequencing methods, and assessment for aberrant loss of T-cell antigen expression by immunohistochemical staining.²

SS
Clinical features of SS may be similar to erythrodermic inflammatory dermatoses, and thus the gold standard for diagnosis is peripheral blood involvement and assessing for clonally related neoplastic T-cell populations.¹ Histopathological findings on skin biopsy are often nonspecific.⁴ The currently proposed International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas criteria for SS integrate clinical, histopathological, immunophenotyping, and molecular studies.²

Benefits of a Multidisciplinary Team Care Approach
Early-stage MF with limited disease can be managed by a dermatologist, but advanced cases often benefit from a multidisciplinary team care model, including hematology-oncology, dermatology, and radiation oncology.^5,6 Several different CTCL care models exist that incorporate resource allocation, staffing availability, and institutional practices developed over time. Regardless of whether care is delivered in a specialized CTCL clinic or a community practice setting, a multidisciplinary team care approach is crucial for patients with advanced-stage CTCL. Dermatologists, hematologist-oncologists, and radiation oncologists may see a patient together or separately, depending on clinical context, and collaborate to formulate the assessment, treatment plan, and address the patient’s questions and concerns. In addition, supportive staff including patient assistance coordinators, pharmacists, behavior health specialists, and palliative care specialists may be included to address the patients’ mental health needs as considerable morbidity from pain, itching, and disfigurement occurs with MF and SS—putting patients at a greater risk for social isolation and depression.⁷

There are several benefits to using a multidisciplinary team care model for managing CTCLs. Different specialties can provide various services and treatment options for patients to consider. Dermatologists perform skin biopsies to monitor disease progression and can administer skin-directed treatments such as phototherapy; radiation oncologists can administer radiation treatment; and oncologists can administer systemic therapies that are outside the scope of dermatology.⁸ The coordination of specialty visits can improve patient satisfaction.

Treatment Goals and Disease Management
Goals for treatment include delaying progression, reducing disease burden, and improving or preserving quality of life.⁵ Decision-making for treating CTCLs should involve preserving potential active treatments for when they are needed during an extended disease course, and mitigating associated burdens of logistical, financial, and physical toxicity.¹

A variety of therapeutic modalities are available for CTCL that target tumor cells and boost antitumor responses, including topical therapies, phototherapy, radiation, chemotherapy, retinoids, and immune-modulating drugs (Table). Because no specific driver mutations have been identified for CTCLs, recent targeted therapy development has focused on various immunomodulators, small molecule inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and antibody-drug conjugates.¹ Lastly, for high-risk patients with persistent disease or disease that is refractory to multiple previous therapies, allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as a potential therapy to induce durable remission may be considered, with careful attention paid to the timing of its use as well as disease and patient characteristics.⁹ 

Table. Therapies for CTCL Care^9,10,a

Alternatively for early-stage MF, a “watch-and-wait” approach depending on the site of lesions and disease evolution may be an option, as this approach is not associated with a worsening of the disease course or survival.¹ Furthermore, aggressive treatments during early stages have not been found to modify the disease course or survival, emphasizing the need for tailoring treatments based on the extent of involvement of the skin and extracutaneous sites.^1,10 New strategies in development to treat CTCL include immune-checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies. Both strategies focus on engaging the immune system to better combat lymphoma.^11,12 

Outlook for Patients With CTCL
Using a multidisciplinary care approach is the optimal way to deliver the complex care required for CTCL.⁵ Such an approach can reduce the time to a definitive diagnosis and accurately stage and risk-stratify the disease. A stage-based treatment approach using sequential therapies in an escalated fashion can help reserve active treatments for advanced disease management and maintain quality of life for patients with CTCL.^1,2

Read more from the 2024 Rare Diseases Report: Hematology and Oncology.

Introduction
Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCL) are a heterogenous group of rare extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphomas that are caused by the accumulation of neoplastic lymphocytes in the skin.^1,2 According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, a total of 14,942 CTCL cases were recorded between 2000 and 2018.³ The incidence rate for all CTCLs is 8.55 per million and appears to be rising. The causes of such an increase are multifactorial and may be related to better diagnostic tools and increased physician awareness.

The incidence of CTCLs also increases with age. The median age at diagnosis is mid-50s but the incidence of CTCLs is 4-fold greater in patients aged 70 years and older.² Furthermore, men and Black individuals have the highest incidence rates for CTCLs.^2,3 More than 10 types of CTCLs have been identified based on biology, histopathology, and clinical features. CTCL types can be either indolent or aggressive.^1,4 Approximately 75% of all primary cutaneous lymphomas consist of CTCLs, including mycosis fungoides (MF), Sézary syndrome (SS), or CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorders (lymphomatoid papulosis and primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma).

The most common CTCL is MF, a clinically heterogeneous, often indolent disease that tends to progress over years or decades.1 This condition classically presents as cutaneous erythematous patches or plaques in sun-protected areas, ie, demonstrating a bathing suit distribution.⁵ Rarely, MF can present as or progress to more aggressive disease, with infiltrative plaques or tumors. For MF, 5- and 10-year survival ranges from 49% to 100% depending on the stage at diagnosis.¹

The most common aggressive CTCL is SS, characterized by erythroderma, intractable pruritis, and the presence of neoplastic clonal T cells (eg, Sézary cells) in the skin, peripheral blood, and/or lymph nodes, with a Sézary cell absolute count of ≥ 1,000 cells/mm³.^1,2 SS tends to progress more rapidly than MF and has a worse prognosis, with 5-year survival ranging from 10% to 50%.^1,4

Definitive Diagnosis
Diagnosis of CTCL requires the neoplastic T cells be confined to the skin.² Thus, diagnostic evaluation should involve a comprehensive physical examination, skin biopsy, and staging blood tests including a peripheral blood flow cytometry if indicated. Sometimes, radiologic imaging is needed, and if there are any abnormalities found on staging blood tests or imaging, lymph node and bone marrow biopsy may be necessary.¹

MF
MF mimics a wide variety of dermatological diseases, with nearly 50 different clinical entities in the differential, making diagnosis challenging.⁵ Clinical findings are heterogenous, and symptoms may be attributed to benign diseases, eg, eczema, or psoriasis. Pathological features may be nonspecific and subtle in the early stages of the disease and overlap with reactive processes; therefore, multiple biopsies performed during the disease course may be required to reach a definitive diagnosis. Creating a further challenge is the potential for skin-directed therapies (such as topical steroids) to interfere with pathological assessment at the time of biopsy.² Thus, obtaining a definitive diagnosis for MF, particularly in the patch or plaque stage, could take a median of 4 years but can take up to 4 decades.^2,5

A definitive diagnosis for MF can be made using clinical and histopathological features. Possible ancillary studies (if indicated) include determination of T-cell clonality by polymerase chain reaction or next-generation sequencing methods, and assessment for aberrant loss of T-cell antigen expression by immunohistochemical staining.²

SS
Clinical features of SS may be similar to erythrodermic inflammatory dermatoses, and thus the gold standard for diagnosis is peripheral blood involvement and assessing for clonally related neoplastic T-cell populations.¹ Histopathological findings on skin biopsy are often nonspecific.⁴ The currently proposed International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas criteria for SS integrate clinical, histopathological, immunophenotyping, and molecular studies.²

Benefits of a Multidisciplinary Team Care Approach
Early-stage MF with limited disease can be managed by a dermatologist, but advanced cases often benefit from a multidisciplinary team care model, including hematology-oncology, dermatology, and radiation oncology.^5,6 Several different CTCL care models exist that incorporate resource allocation, staffing availability, and institutional practices developed over time. Regardless of whether care is delivered in a specialized CTCL clinic or a community practice setting, a multidisciplinary team care approach is crucial for patients with advanced-stage CTCL. Dermatologists, hematologist-oncologists, and radiation oncologists may see a patient together or separately, depending on clinical context, and collaborate to formulate the assessment, treatment plan, and address the patient’s questions and concerns. In addition, supportive staff including patient assistance coordinators, pharmacists, behavior health specialists, and palliative care specialists may be included to address the patients’ mental health needs as considerable morbidity from pain, itching, and disfigurement occurs with MF and SS—putting patients at a greater risk for social isolation and depression.⁷

There are several benefits to using a multidisciplinary team care model for managing CTCLs. Different specialties can provide various services and treatment options for patients to consider. Dermatologists perform skin biopsies to monitor disease progression and can administer skin-directed treatments such as phototherapy; radiation oncologists can administer radiation treatment; and oncologists can administer systemic therapies that are outside the scope of dermatology.⁸ The coordination of specialty visits can improve patient satisfaction.

Treatment Goals and Disease Management
Goals for treatment include delaying progression, reducing disease burden, and improving or preserving quality of life.⁵ Decision-making for treating CTCLs should involve preserving potential active treatments for when they are needed during an extended disease course, and mitigating associated burdens of logistical, financial, and physical toxicity.¹

A variety of therapeutic modalities are available for CTCL that target tumor cells and boost antitumor responses, including topical therapies, phototherapy, radiation, chemotherapy, retinoids, and immune-modulating drugs (Table). Because no specific driver mutations have been identified for CTCLs, recent targeted therapy development has focused on various immunomodulators, small molecule inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and antibody-drug conjugates.¹ Lastly, for high-risk patients with persistent disease or disease that is refractory to multiple previous therapies, allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as a potential therapy to induce durable remission may be considered, with careful attention paid to the timing of its use as well as disease and patient characteristics.⁹ 

Table. Therapies for CTCL Care^9,10,a

Alternatively for early-stage MF, a “watch-and-wait” approach depending on the site of lesions and disease evolution may be an option, as this approach is not associated with a worsening of the disease course or survival.¹ Furthermore, aggressive treatments during early stages have not been found to modify the disease course or survival, emphasizing the need for tailoring treatments based on the extent of involvement of the skin and extracutaneous sites.^1,10 New strategies in development to treat CTCL include immune-checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies. Both strategies focus on engaging the immune system to better combat lymphoma.^11,12 

Outlook for Patients With CTCL
Using a multidisciplinary care approach is the optimal way to deliver the complex care required for CTCL.⁵ Such an approach can reduce the time to a definitive diagnosis and accurately stage and risk-stratify the disease. A stage-based treatment approach using sequential therapies in an escalated fashion can help reserve active treatments for advanced disease management and maintain quality of life for patients with CTCL.^1,2

Read more from the 2024 Rare Diseases Report: Hematology and Oncology.

National Organization for Rare Disorders: Strengthening Rare Cancer Advocacy
By Alli Ward
NORD's Rare Cancer Coalition has transformed advocacy and awareness efforts, offering education and fostering research to address the challenges of rare cancers.

Treatment of Glioblastoma: A Potential Shift in Paradigm
By Jeffrey N. Bruce, MD
Immunotherapies and molecular profiling are paving the way for more targeted approaches in treating glioblastoma.

Emerging Insights and Therapeutic Strategies for Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lung
By Robert A. Ramirez, DO, FACP, and Aman Chauhan, MD 
New diagnostic tools and precision medicine approaches are addressing the unique challenges of this aggressive neuroendocrine cancer.

Advancements in the Treatment of Malignant PEComas with mTOR Inhibitors
By Richard F. Riedel, MD
The use of mTOR inhibitors marks significant progress in managing advanced malignant PEComas, offering new hope for patients.

Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas Update: Benefits of a Multidisciplinary Care Approach
By Jina Chung, MD, and Eric Mou, MD
A multidisciplinary care model ensures optimal outcomes for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphomas, addressing both medical and emotional needs.

Optimizing Myelofibrosis Care in the Age of JAK Inhibitors
By Douglas Tremblay, MD
JAK inhibitors are central to myelofibrosis management, with personalized strategies helping to navigate resistance and improve quality of life.

Current Management and Future Directions in the Treatment of Gallbladder Cancer
By Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa, MD, MBA, JD, FASCO
Molecular profiling and immunotherapy are reshaping the treatment paradigm for gallbladder cancer, improving survival outcomes.

Improving Prognosis in Hepatoblastoma: Evolving Risk Stratification and Treatment Strategies
By Greg M. Tiao, MD
Risk stratification and individualized therapies are driving progress in treating hepatoblastoma, with promising advancements on the horizon.

National Organization for Rare Disorders: Strengthening Rare Cancer Advocacy
By Alli Ward
NORD's Rare Cancer Coalition has transformed advocacy and awareness efforts, offering education and fostering research to address the challenges of rare cancers.

Treatment of Glioblastoma: A Potential Shift in Paradigm
By Jeffrey N. Bruce, MD
Immunotherapies and molecular profiling are paving the way for more targeted approaches in treating glioblastoma.

Emerging Insights and Therapeutic Strategies for Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lung
By Robert A. Ramirez, DO, FACP, and Aman Chauhan, MD 
New diagnostic tools and precision medicine approaches are addressing the unique challenges of this aggressive neuroendocrine cancer.

Advancements in the Treatment of Malignant PEComas with mTOR Inhibitors
By Richard F. Riedel, MD
The use of mTOR inhibitors marks significant progress in managing advanced malignant PEComas, offering new hope for patients.

Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas Update: Benefits of a Multidisciplinary Care Approach
By Jina Chung, MD, and Eric Mou, MD
A multidisciplinary care model ensures optimal outcomes for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphomas, addressing both medical and emotional needs.

Optimizing Myelofibrosis Care in the Age of JAK Inhibitors
By Douglas Tremblay, MD
JAK inhibitors are central to myelofibrosis management, with personalized strategies helping to navigate resistance and improve quality of life.

Current Management and Future Directions in the Treatment of Gallbladder Cancer
By Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa, MD, MBA, JD, FASCO
Molecular profiling and immunotherapy are reshaping the treatment paradigm for gallbladder cancer, improving survival outcomes.

Improving Prognosis in Hepatoblastoma: Evolving Risk Stratification and Treatment Strategies
By Greg M. Tiao, MD
Risk stratification and individualized therapies are driving progress in treating hepatoblastoma, with promising advancements on the horizon.

National Organization for Rare Disorders: Strengthening Rare Cancer Advocacy
By Alli Ward
NORD's Rare Cancer Coalition has transformed advocacy and awareness efforts, offering education and fostering research to address the challenges of rare cancers.

Treatment of Glioblastoma: A Potential Shift in Paradigm
By Jeffrey N. Bruce, MD
Immunotherapies and molecular profiling are paving the way for more targeted approaches in treating glioblastoma.

Emerging Insights and Therapeutic Strategies for Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lung
By Robert A. Ramirez, DO, FACP, and Aman Chauhan, MD 
New diagnostic tools and precision medicine approaches are addressing the unique challenges of this aggressive neuroendocrine cancer.

Advancements in the Treatment of Malignant PEComas with mTOR Inhibitors
By Richard F. Riedel, MD
The use of mTOR inhibitors marks significant progress in managing advanced malignant PEComas, offering new hope for patients.

Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphomas Update: Benefits of a Multidisciplinary Care Approach
By Jina Chung, MD, and Eric Mou, MD
A multidisciplinary care model ensures optimal outcomes for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphomas, addressing both medical and emotional needs.

Optimizing Myelofibrosis Care in the Age of JAK Inhibitors
By Douglas Tremblay, MD
JAK inhibitors are central to myelofibrosis management, with personalized strategies helping to navigate resistance and improve quality of life.

Current Management and Future Directions in the Treatment of Gallbladder Cancer
By Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa, MD, MBA, JD, FASCO
Molecular profiling and immunotherapy are reshaping the treatment paradigm for gallbladder cancer, improving survival outcomes.

Improving Prognosis in Hepatoblastoma: Evolving Risk Stratification and Treatment Strategies
By Greg M. Tiao, MD
Risk stratification and individualized therapies are driving progress in treating hepatoblastoma, with promising advancements on the horizon.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.