User login
Patient Navigators for Serious Illnesses Can Now Bill Under New Medicare Codes
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Red Wine May Not Be a Health Tonic, But Is It a Cancer Risk?
Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.
But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?
For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.
The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.
Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.
Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.
“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”
The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk
Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”
Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)
“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.
Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.
Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.
As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.
“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”
Hints That Wine Is an Outlier
Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.
A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).
Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).
The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.
This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.
“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”
Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.
The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.
Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.
In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”
Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.
In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.
“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”
A Conversation Few Are Having
Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.
A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.
“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.
That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.
It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.
“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”
Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.
But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?
For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.
The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.
Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.
Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.
“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”
The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk
Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”
Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)
“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.
Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.
Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.
As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.
“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”
Hints That Wine Is an Outlier
Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.
A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).
Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).
The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.
This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.
“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”
Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.
The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.
Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.
In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”
Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.
In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.
“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”
A Conversation Few Are Having
Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.
A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.
“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.
That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.
It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.
“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”
Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.
But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?
For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.
The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.
Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.
Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.
“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”
The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk
Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”
Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)
“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.
Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.
Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.
As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.
“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”
Hints That Wine Is an Outlier
Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.
A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).
Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).
The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.
This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.
“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”
Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.
The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.
Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.
In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”
Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.
In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.
“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”
A Conversation Few Are Having
Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.
A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.
“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.
That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.
It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.
“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”
Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CDK 4/6 Blocker Prolongs Survival in HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer
according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.
This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).
Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.
Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).
Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.
Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.
“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.
On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.
But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.
These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.
‘Incredible’ Results
The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”
Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.
Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.
In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.
Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.
Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.
For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.
In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.
The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.
This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).
Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.
Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).
Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.
Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.
“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.
On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.
But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.
These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.
‘Incredible’ Results
The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”
Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.
Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.
In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.
Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.
Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.
For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.
In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.
The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the results of the phase 3 PATINA study.
This regimen “may represent a new standard of care” for these patients, said principal investigator and presenter Otto Metzger, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.
The open-label PATINA trial, which was conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, included a total of 518 patients. Patients received first-line treatment of six to eight cycles of induction chemotherapy plus anti-HER2 therapy. Researchers then randomized patients to either palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy (n = 261) or to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy alone (n = 257).
Patients did not progress on induction therapy, which likely would have signaled early resistance to anti-HER2 treatment. For anti-HER2 therapy, 97.3% received a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For endocrine therapy, 90.9% received an aromatase inhibitor.
Metzger and colleagues found that median progression-free survival was 1.3 years longer in patients receiving palbociclib — 3.7 years in the palbociclib arm vs 2.4 years in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .0074).
Although overall survival outcomes are immature, 5-year survival rates were slightly better in the palbociclib arm — 74.3% with palbociclib vs 69.8% without it — but the difference was not statistically significant.
Grade 3 neutropenia was the most frequent adverse event in the palbociclib arm (63.2% vs 2%). Grades 2 and 3 fatigue, stomatitis, and diarrhea were also more common with palbociclib. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 12.3% of those receiving palbociclib and 8.9% of those who did not. There were no treatment-related deaths.
“We’re very impressed with the results,” said Metzger.
On the basis of previous studies, it’s believed that CDK 4/6 inhibition counteracts the development of resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies, which likely explains the benefit found in the trial.
But even without CDK 4/6 inhibition, the progression-free survival of 2.4 years in the control arm “far exceed[ed] our expectations,” Metzger reported. This may have occurred because the control arm received endocrine therapy, something previous trials of anti-HER2 therapy have avoided because of tolerability and other concerns.
These findings, however, support “the common use of endocrine therapy,” Metzger said.
‘Incredible’ Results
The progression-free survival as well as overall survival results in the trial are “incredible,” said study discussant Sara Hurvitz, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. This is “historic and very important data.”
Hurvitz even suggested the results might mean that patients who fit the PATINA criteria can avoid the toxicity of upfront trastuzumab deruxtecan and use the PATINA regimen instead, potentially preserving their quality of life for longer.
Another study discussant, Virginia Kaklamani, MD, a medical breast oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Antonio, had a similar thought.
In PATINA, “we’re talking about patients being on a treatment that’s well tolerated, where patients continue to work and continue with their lives despite being on treatment for metastatic breast cancer for 4 years, which is remarkable,” Kaklamani said.
Many of us have dabbled with giving CDK 4/6 inhibitors in triple-positive breast cancer, but “now we have more definitive data,” she said. The approach can help “maintain the quality of life of our patients for a longer period of time” and delay the use of chemotherapy in the second line, she added.
Metzger said Pfizer, the maker of palbociclib, plans to file for a HER2-positive indication with the Food and Drug Administration based on the trial results.
For now, the CDK 4/6 blocker is only indicated in combination with endocrine therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic disease.
In response to a question about using the PATINA regimen in patients who don’t get chemotherapy induction, Metzger noted that, “while the study didn’t test this directly, I would argue that this data is quite compelling” for using palbociclib plus anti-HER2 and endocrine therapy, even without chemotherapy induction.
The work was funded by palbociclib maker Pfizer. Metzger had no disclosures. Hurvitz has numerous industry ties, including being a researcher and advisor to Pfizer. Kaklamani also has numerous industry ties, including reporting personal/consulting fees from Pfizer Canada.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SABCS 2024
Dietary Calcium Cuts Colorectal Cancer Risk by 17%
Cancer Research UK (CRUK), which funded the study, said that it demonstrated the benefits of a healthy, balanced diet for lowering cancer risk.
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Incidence rates vary markedly, with higher rates observed in high-income countries. The risk increases for individuals who migrate from low- to high-incidence areas, suggesting that lifestyle and environmental factors contribute to its development.
While alcohol and processed meats are established carcinogens, and red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic, there is a lack of consensus regarding the relationships between other dietary factors and colorectal cancer risk. This uncertainty may be due, at least in part, to relatively few studies giving comprehensive results on all food types, as well as dietary measurement errors, and/or small sample sizes.
Study Tracked 97 Dietary Factors
To address these gaps, the research team, led by the University of Oxford in England, tracked the intake of 97 dietary factors in 542,778 women from 2001 for an average of 16.6 years. During this period 12,251 participants developed colorectal cancer. The women completed detailed dietary questionnaires at baseline, with 7% participating in at least one subsequent 24-hour online dietary assessment.
Women diagnosed with colorectal cancer were generally older, taller, more likely to have a family history of bowel cancer, and have more adverse health behaviors, compared with participants overall.
Calcium Intake Showed the Strongest Protective Association
Relative risks (RR) for colorectal cancer were calculated for intakes of all 97 dietary factors, with significant associations found for 17 of them. Calcium intake showed the strongest protective effect, with each additional 300 mg per day – equivalent to a large glass of milk – associated with a 17% reduced RR.
Six dairy-related factors associated with calcium – dairy milk, yogurt, riboflavin, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium intakes – also demonstrated inverse associations with colorectal cancer risk. Weaker protective effects were noted for breakfast cereal, fruit, wholegrains, carbohydrates, fibre, total sugars, folate, and vitamin C. However, the team commented that these inverse associations might reflect residual confounding from other lifestyle or other dietary factors.
Calcium’s protective role was independent of dairy milk intake. The study, published in Nature Communications, concluded that, while “dairy products help protect against colorectal cancer,” that protection is “driven largely or wholly by calcium.”
Alcohol and Processed Meat Confirmed as Risk Factors
As expected, alcohol showed the reverse association, with each additional 20 g daily – equivalent to one large glass of wine – associated with a 15% RR increase. Weaker associations were seen for the combined category of red and processed meat, with each additional 30 g per day associated with an 8% increased RR for colorectal cancer. This association was minimally affected by diet and lifestyle factors.
Commenting to the Science Media Centre (SMC), Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, England, said: “One theory is that the calcium may bind to free bile acids in the gut, preventing the harmful effects of free bile acids on gut mucosa.” However, the lactose content in milk also has effects on large bowel microflora, which may in turn affect risk.
Also commenting to the SMC, David Nunan, senior research fellow at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, who was not involved in the study, cautioned that the findings were subject to the bias inherent in observational studies. “These biases often inflate the estimated associations compared to controlled experiments,” he said. Nunan advised caution in interpreting the findings, as more robust research, such as randomized controlled trials, would be needed to establish causation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer Research UK (CRUK), which funded the study, said that it demonstrated the benefits of a healthy, balanced diet for lowering cancer risk.
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Incidence rates vary markedly, with higher rates observed in high-income countries. The risk increases for individuals who migrate from low- to high-incidence areas, suggesting that lifestyle and environmental factors contribute to its development.
While alcohol and processed meats are established carcinogens, and red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic, there is a lack of consensus regarding the relationships between other dietary factors and colorectal cancer risk. This uncertainty may be due, at least in part, to relatively few studies giving comprehensive results on all food types, as well as dietary measurement errors, and/or small sample sizes.
Study Tracked 97 Dietary Factors
To address these gaps, the research team, led by the University of Oxford in England, tracked the intake of 97 dietary factors in 542,778 women from 2001 for an average of 16.6 years. During this period 12,251 participants developed colorectal cancer. The women completed detailed dietary questionnaires at baseline, with 7% participating in at least one subsequent 24-hour online dietary assessment.
Women diagnosed with colorectal cancer were generally older, taller, more likely to have a family history of bowel cancer, and have more adverse health behaviors, compared with participants overall.
Calcium Intake Showed the Strongest Protective Association
Relative risks (RR) for colorectal cancer were calculated for intakes of all 97 dietary factors, with significant associations found for 17 of them. Calcium intake showed the strongest protective effect, with each additional 300 mg per day – equivalent to a large glass of milk – associated with a 17% reduced RR.
Six dairy-related factors associated with calcium – dairy milk, yogurt, riboflavin, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium intakes – also demonstrated inverse associations with colorectal cancer risk. Weaker protective effects were noted for breakfast cereal, fruit, wholegrains, carbohydrates, fibre, total sugars, folate, and vitamin C. However, the team commented that these inverse associations might reflect residual confounding from other lifestyle or other dietary factors.
Calcium’s protective role was independent of dairy milk intake. The study, published in Nature Communications, concluded that, while “dairy products help protect against colorectal cancer,” that protection is “driven largely or wholly by calcium.”
Alcohol and Processed Meat Confirmed as Risk Factors
As expected, alcohol showed the reverse association, with each additional 20 g daily – equivalent to one large glass of wine – associated with a 15% RR increase. Weaker associations were seen for the combined category of red and processed meat, with each additional 30 g per day associated with an 8% increased RR for colorectal cancer. This association was minimally affected by diet and lifestyle factors.
Commenting to the Science Media Centre (SMC), Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, England, said: “One theory is that the calcium may bind to free bile acids in the gut, preventing the harmful effects of free bile acids on gut mucosa.” However, the lactose content in milk also has effects on large bowel microflora, which may in turn affect risk.
Also commenting to the SMC, David Nunan, senior research fellow at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, who was not involved in the study, cautioned that the findings were subject to the bias inherent in observational studies. “These biases often inflate the estimated associations compared to controlled experiments,” he said. Nunan advised caution in interpreting the findings, as more robust research, such as randomized controlled trials, would be needed to establish causation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer Research UK (CRUK), which funded the study, said that it demonstrated the benefits of a healthy, balanced diet for lowering cancer risk.
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Incidence rates vary markedly, with higher rates observed in high-income countries. The risk increases for individuals who migrate from low- to high-incidence areas, suggesting that lifestyle and environmental factors contribute to its development.
While alcohol and processed meats are established carcinogens, and red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic, there is a lack of consensus regarding the relationships between other dietary factors and colorectal cancer risk. This uncertainty may be due, at least in part, to relatively few studies giving comprehensive results on all food types, as well as dietary measurement errors, and/or small sample sizes.
Study Tracked 97 Dietary Factors
To address these gaps, the research team, led by the University of Oxford in England, tracked the intake of 97 dietary factors in 542,778 women from 2001 for an average of 16.6 years. During this period 12,251 participants developed colorectal cancer. The women completed detailed dietary questionnaires at baseline, with 7% participating in at least one subsequent 24-hour online dietary assessment.
Women diagnosed with colorectal cancer were generally older, taller, more likely to have a family history of bowel cancer, and have more adverse health behaviors, compared with participants overall.
Calcium Intake Showed the Strongest Protective Association
Relative risks (RR) for colorectal cancer were calculated for intakes of all 97 dietary factors, with significant associations found for 17 of them. Calcium intake showed the strongest protective effect, with each additional 300 mg per day – equivalent to a large glass of milk – associated with a 17% reduced RR.
Six dairy-related factors associated with calcium – dairy milk, yogurt, riboflavin, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium intakes – also demonstrated inverse associations with colorectal cancer risk. Weaker protective effects were noted for breakfast cereal, fruit, wholegrains, carbohydrates, fibre, total sugars, folate, and vitamin C. However, the team commented that these inverse associations might reflect residual confounding from other lifestyle or other dietary factors.
Calcium’s protective role was independent of dairy milk intake. The study, published in Nature Communications, concluded that, while “dairy products help protect against colorectal cancer,” that protection is “driven largely or wholly by calcium.”
Alcohol and Processed Meat Confirmed as Risk Factors
As expected, alcohol showed the reverse association, with each additional 20 g daily – equivalent to one large glass of wine – associated with a 15% RR increase. Weaker associations were seen for the combined category of red and processed meat, with each additional 30 g per day associated with an 8% increased RR for colorectal cancer. This association was minimally affected by diet and lifestyle factors.
Commenting to the Science Media Centre (SMC), Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, England, said: “One theory is that the calcium may bind to free bile acids in the gut, preventing the harmful effects of free bile acids on gut mucosa.” However, the lactose content in milk also has effects on large bowel microflora, which may in turn affect risk.
Also commenting to the SMC, David Nunan, senior research fellow at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, who was not involved in the study, cautioned that the findings were subject to the bias inherent in observational studies. “These biases often inflate the estimated associations compared to controlled experiments,” he said. Nunan advised caution in interpreting the findings, as more robust research, such as randomized controlled trials, would be needed to establish causation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
MRI-Invisible Prostate Lesions: Are They Dangerous?
MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.
But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.
MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.
Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.
If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.
Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”
Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.
But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.
Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.
MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.
In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.
Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.
When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.
“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.
The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.
But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”
The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.
According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.
In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.
“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.
Next Steps After Negative MRI Result
What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?
The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.
Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.
The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.
Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.
These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.
Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.”
According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.
Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.
But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.
MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.
Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.
If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.
Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”
Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.
But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.
Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.
MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.
In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.
Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.
When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.
“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.
The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.
But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”
The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.
According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.
In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.
“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.
Next Steps After Negative MRI Result
What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?
The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.
Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.
The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.
Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.
These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.
Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.”
According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.
Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.
But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.
MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.
Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.
If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.
Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”
Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.
But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.
Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.
MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.
In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.
Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.
When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.
“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.
The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.
But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”
The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.
According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.
In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.
“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.
Next Steps After Negative MRI Result
What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?
The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.
Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.
The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.
Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.
These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.
Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.”
According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.
Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
KRAS Mutations Linked to Varied Treatment Outcomes in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing deidentified clinical data from 2,433 patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), diagnosed between February 2010 and September 2022.
- They assessed the association of KRAS mutations in metastatic PDAC with the clinical outcomes and responses to first-line chemotherapy regimens.
- Data originated from approximately 280 US cancer clinics, encompassing about 800 sites of care, with comprehensive genomic profiling performed on all patients.
- Analysis focused on median overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT) across different KRAS mutation groups, using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients with KRAS G12D and G12V mutations showed significantly higher risk for disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29; P = .009) and (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30; P = .01), respectively, compared with KRAS wild type.
- KRAS G12R mutations were associated with the longest median OS at 13.2 months (95% CI, 10.6-15.2) and longest median TTNT at 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.2-6.6).
- FOLFIRINOX treatment demonstrated better outcomes than gemcitabine-based therapies across all patients, with lower risk for treatment progression (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; P < .001) and death (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29; P < .001).
- Specifically, when FOLFIRINOX was used as first-line treatment in patients with KRAS G12D and G12V mutations, the therapy was associated with improved TTNT and OS vs gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel.
IN PRACTICE:
“In its totality, these data set a benchmark for future studies on KRAS inhibitors for specific KRAS variants and highlights the groups for which treatment combinations may ultimately be necessary,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Carter Norton, Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah. It was published online on January 7 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, the study’s limitations include the heterogeneity of clinical data collected retrospectively, which is subject to residual confounding. The sample size was limited for certain mutational groups, particularly KRAS G12C, leading to limited statistical power. Additionally, the detection rate of genomic alterations by commercially available assays may be affected by the high stromal content and low cellularity characteristic of PDAC.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by Cancer Center Support grant P30CA042014 from the National Institutes of Health. Heloisa P. Soares, MD, PhD, one of the study authors, disclosed receiving consulting fees from Ipsen, Exelixis Inc, BMS, Novartis AG, AstraZeneca, and TerSera Therapeutics LLC and symposium speaker fees from ITM Radiopharma outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing deidentified clinical data from 2,433 patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), diagnosed between February 2010 and September 2022.
- They assessed the association of KRAS mutations in metastatic PDAC with the clinical outcomes and responses to first-line chemotherapy regimens.
- Data originated from approximately 280 US cancer clinics, encompassing about 800 sites of care, with comprehensive genomic profiling performed on all patients.
- Analysis focused on median overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT) across different KRAS mutation groups, using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients with KRAS G12D and G12V mutations showed significantly higher risk for disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29; P = .009) and (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30; P = .01), respectively, compared with KRAS wild type.
- KRAS G12R mutations were associated with the longest median OS at 13.2 months (95% CI, 10.6-15.2) and longest median TTNT at 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.2-6.6).
- FOLFIRINOX treatment demonstrated better outcomes than gemcitabine-based therapies across all patients, with lower risk for treatment progression (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; P < .001) and death (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29; P < .001).
- Specifically, when FOLFIRINOX was used as first-line treatment in patients with KRAS G12D and G12V mutations, the therapy was associated with improved TTNT and OS vs gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel.
IN PRACTICE:
“In its totality, these data set a benchmark for future studies on KRAS inhibitors for specific KRAS variants and highlights the groups for which treatment combinations may ultimately be necessary,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Carter Norton, Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah. It was published online on January 7 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, the study’s limitations include the heterogeneity of clinical data collected retrospectively, which is subject to residual confounding. The sample size was limited for certain mutational groups, particularly KRAS G12C, leading to limited statistical power. Additionally, the detection rate of genomic alterations by commercially available assays may be affected by the high stromal content and low cellularity characteristic of PDAC.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by Cancer Center Support grant P30CA042014 from the National Institutes of Health. Heloisa P. Soares, MD, PhD, one of the study authors, disclosed receiving consulting fees from Ipsen, Exelixis Inc, BMS, Novartis AG, AstraZeneca, and TerSera Therapeutics LLC and symposium speaker fees from ITM Radiopharma outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing deidentified clinical data from 2,433 patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), diagnosed between February 2010 and September 2022.
- They assessed the association of KRAS mutations in metastatic PDAC with the clinical outcomes and responses to first-line chemotherapy regimens.
- Data originated from approximately 280 US cancer clinics, encompassing about 800 sites of care, with comprehensive genomic profiling performed on all patients.
- Analysis focused on median overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT) across different KRAS mutation groups, using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients with KRAS G12D and G12V mutations showed significantly higher risk for disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29; P = .009) and (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30; P = .01), respectively, compared with KRAS wild type.
- KRAS G12R mutations were associated with the longest median OS at 13.2 months (95% CI, 10.6-15.2) and longest median TTNT at 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.2-6.6).
- FOLFIRINOX treatment demonstrated better outcomes than gemcitabine-based therapies across all patients, with lower risk for treatment progression (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; P < .001) and death (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29; P < .001).
- Specifically, when FOLFIRINOX was used as first-line treatment in patients with KRAS G12D and G12V mutations, the therapy was associated with improved TTNT and OS vs gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel.
IN PRACTICE:
“In its totality, these data set a benchmark for future studies on KRAS inhibitors for specific KRAS variants and highlights the groups for which treatment combinations may ultimately be necessary,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Carter Norton, Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah. It was published online on January 7 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, the study’s limitations include the heterogeneity of clinical data collected retrospectively, which is subject to residual confounding. The sample size was limited for certain mutational groups, particularly KRAS G12C, leading to limited statistical power. Additionally, the detection rate of genomic alterations by commercially available assays may be affected by the high stromal content and low cellularity characteristic of PDAC.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by Cancer Center Support grant P30CA042014 from the National Institutes of Health. Heloisa P. Soares, MD, PhD, one of the study authors, disclosed receiving consulting fees from Ipsen, Exelixis Inc, BMS, Novartis AG, AstraZeneca, and TerSera Therapeutics LLC and symposium speaker fees from ITM Radiopharma outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Can Glucarpidase Help Reverse Methotrexate Kidney Damage?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
- Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
- The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
- Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
- Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
- Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
- No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).
IN PRACTICE:
“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
- Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
- The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
- Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
- Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
- Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
- No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).
IN PRACTICE:
“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
- Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
- The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
- Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.
TAKEAWAY:
- Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
- Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
- Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
- No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).
IN PRACTICE:
“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PSMA-PET Detects Metastatic Disease in Prostate Cancer Patients With Negative Conventional Imaging
TOPLINE:
Results were positive in 84% of patients, with polymetastatic disease found in 24% of cases.
METHODOLOGY:
- Recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is characterized by increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while naive or responsive to androgen deprivation therapy, without evidence of metastasis on conventional imaging.
- A post hoc, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included 182 patients from four prospective studies conducted from September 2016 to September 2021, with participants having recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, definitive radiotherapy, or salvage radiotherapy.
- Inclusion criteria encompassed PSA levels > 1.0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy or > 2.0 ng/mL above nadir after definitive radiotherapy, PSA doubling time ≤ 9 months, and serum testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dL.
- Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, performed Gallium-68-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging with a median injection of 5.0 mCi and uptake time of 61 minutes, with 98% of patients receiving CT contrast.
TAKEAWAY:
- PSMA-PET findings were positive in 80% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 92% after definitive radiotherapy, 85% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 84% overall (153 of 182 patients).
- Distant metastatic disease was detected in 34% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 56% after definitive radiotherapy, 60% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 46% overall.
- Polymetastatic disease (≥ 5 lesions) was identified in 19% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 36% after definitive radiotherapy, 23% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 24% overall.
- According to the authors, these findings suggest that patients’ high-risk nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancers are understaged by conventional imaging.
IN PRACTICE:
“In a cohort of patients with high-risk hormone-sensitive prostate cancer without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, PSMA-PET results were positive in 84% of patients, detected M1 disease stage in 46% of patients, and found polymetastatic disease in 24% of patients. ... The results challenge the interpretation of previous studies, such as the EMBARK trial, and support the evolving role of PSMA-PET for patient selection in clinical and trial interventions in prostate cancer,” the authors of the new paper wrote. “Further studies are needed to assess its independent prognostic value and use for treatment guidance.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Adrien Holzgreve, MD, and Wesley R. Armstrong, BS, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on January 3 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The analysis included significantly fewer patients treated with combined radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy than the original EMBARK trial (29% vs 49%). Patients in this study had a lower median PSA doubling time and serum PSA level at enrollment than those in the EMBARK study. The retrospective nature of this study precluded systematic baseline imaging that would be standard for clinical trial enrollment. Additionally, while PSMA-PET offers the best diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer staging, it can produce false-positive findings, particularly in bone metastases, with a positive predictive value of 0.84% in biochemical recurrence.
DISCLOSURES:
Holzgreve reported receiving personal fees from ABX advanced biochemical compounds outside the submitted work. This study was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Results were positive in 84% of patients, with polymetastatic disease found in 24% of cases.
METHODOLOGY:
- Recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is characterized by increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while naive or responsive to androgen deprivation therapy, without evidence of metastasis on conventional imaging.
- A post hoc, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included 182 patients from four prospective studies conducted from September 2016 to September 2021, with participants having recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, definitive radiotherapy, or salvage radiotherapy.
- Inclusion criteria encompassed PSA levels > 1.0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy or > 2.0 ng/mL above nadir after definitive radiotherapy, PSA doubling time ≤ 9 months, and serum testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dL.
- Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, performed Gallium-68-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging with a median injection of 5.0 mCi and uptake time of 61 minutes, with 98% of patients receiving CT contrast.
TAKEAWAY:
- PSMA-PET findings were positive in 80% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 92% after definitive radiotherapy, 85% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 84% overall (153 of 182 patients).
- Distant metastatic disease was detected in 34% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 56% after definitive radiotherapy, 60% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 46% overall.
- Polymetastatic disease (≥ 5 lesions) was identified in 19% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 36% after definitive radiotherapy, 23% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 24% overall.
- According to the authors, these findings suggest that patients’ high-risk nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancers are understaged by conventional imaging.
IN PRACTICE:
“In a cohort of patients with high-risk hormone-sensitive prostate cancer without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, PSMA-PET results were positive in 84% of patients, detected M1 disease stage in 46% of patients, and found polymetastatic disease in 24% of patients. ... The results challenge the interpretation of previous studies, such as the EMBARK trial, and support the evolving role of PSMA-PET for patient selection in clinical and trial interventions in prostate cancer,” the authors of the new paper wrote. “Further studies are needed to assess its independent prognostic value and use for treatment guidance.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Adrien Holzgreve, MD, and Wesley R. Armstrong, BS, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on January 3 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The analysis included significantly fewer patients treated with combined radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy than the original EMBARK trial (29% vs 49%). Patients in this study had a lower median PSA doubling time and serum PSA level at enrollment than those in the EMBARK study. The retrospective nature of this study precluded systematic baseline imaging that would be standard for clinical trial enrollment. Additionally, while PSMA-PET offers the best diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer staging, it can produce false-positive findings, particularly in bone metastases, with a positive predictive value of 0.84% in biochemical recurrence.
DISCLOSURES:
Holzgreve reported receiving personal fees from ABX advanced biochemical compounds outside the submitted work. This study was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Results were positive in 84% of patients, with polymetastatic disease found in 24% of cases.
METHODOLOGY:
- Recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is characterized by increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while naive or responsive to androgen deprivation therapy, without evidence of metastasis on conventional imaging.
- A post hoc, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included 182 patients from four prospective studies conducted from September 2016 to September 2021, with participants having recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, definitive radiotherapy, or salvage radiotherapy.
- Inclusion criteria encompassed PSA levels > 1.0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy or > 2.0 ng/mL above nadir after definitive radiotherapy, PSA doubling time ≤ 9 months, and serum testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dL.
- Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, performed Gallium-68-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging with a median injection of 5.0 mCi and uptake time of 61 minutes, with 98% of patients receiving CT contrast.
TAKEAWAY:
- PSMA-PET findings were positive in 80% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 92% after definitive radiotherapy, 85% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 84% overall (153 of 182 patients).
- Distant metastatic disease was detected in 34% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 56% after definitive radiotherapy, 60% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 46% overall.
- Polymetastatic disease (≥ 5 lesions) was identified in 19% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 36% after definitive radiotherapy, 23% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 24% overall.
- According to the authors, these findings suggest that patients’ high-risk nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancers are understaged by conventional imaging.
IN PRACTICE:
“In a cohort of patients with high-risk hormone-sensitive prostate cancer without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, PSMA-PET results were positive in 84% of patients, detected M1 disease stage in 46% of patients, and found polymetastatic disease in 24% of patients. ... The results challenge the interpretation of previous studies, such as the EMBARK trial, and support the evolving role of PSMA-PET for patient selection in clinical and trial interventions in prostate cancer,” the authors of the new paper wrote. “Further studies are needed to assess its independent prognostic value and use for treatment guidance.”
SOURCE:
This study was led by Adrien Holzgreve, MD, and Wesley R. Armstrong, BS, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on January 3 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The analysis included significantly fewer patients treated with combined radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy than the original EMBARK trial (29% vs 49%). Patients in this study had a lower median PSA doubling time and serum PSA level at enrollment than those in the EMBARK study. The retrospective nature of this study precluded systematic baseline imaging that would be standard for clinical trial enrollment. Additionally, while PSMA-PET offers the best diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer staging, it can produce false-positive findings, particularly in bone metastases, with a positive predictive value of 0.84% in biochemical recurrence.
DISCLOSURES:
Holzgreve reported receiving personal fees from ABX advanced biochemical compounds outside the submitted work. This study was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Evidence Gap: Immunotherapy Timing in Early-Stage NSCLC?
Since October 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three checkpoint inhibitors — pembrolizumab (Keytruda), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and most recently nivolumab (Opdivo) — alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy before surgery and as monotherapy after surgery to treat resectable NSCLC.
But the trials leading to each approval had a major design flaw. The studies failed to distinguish when patients with resectable NSCLC benefited from immunotherapy — before surgery, after surgery, or at both points.
That missing piece has left oncologists without definitive guidance on how best to treat their patients with resectable disease.
Jamie E. Chaft, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist and attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, was “surprised” that the FDA had approved the three immunotherapy combination regimens without this clarity. Clinicians are now left with studies that can’t evaluate the contribution of the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases, she said.
But that may soon change.
In July, an FDA advisory committee met to discuss the pending approval of durvalumab.
During this July meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) called out issues with AstraZeneca’s design of the trial, expressing concern that AstraZeneca had not followed the agency’s advice to compare patient outcomes with durvalumab in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases.
The ODAC panel ultimately voted unanimously in favor of requiring drug companies to demonstrate that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC. Several panelists said this requirement should extend beyond NSCLC to other tumor types.
“We need to understand who needs what therapy when,” Daniel Spratt, MD, chairman of the FDA’s ODAC, told Medscape Medical News.
But even if the FDA does require drug companies to assess the benefit of immunotherapy pre- and post-surgery, will oncologists get the answers they need for their patients with resectable NSCLC? Or will the new costly trial design requirements dead-end progress in this space?
Treating Patients Without Clear Evidence
Despite the ODAC’s strong urging to require — not simply request — that drug companies show patients with resectable NSCLC benefit from immunotherapy in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, the advisory panel did not think durvalumab’s approval should be delayed until the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question is answered.
A month later, in August, the FDA approved durvalumab for this indication.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) had already been approved 10 months earlier in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in this setting. And most recently, in October, the FDA added nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) to these approvals.
No trial, however, identified when patients benefited from the drug.
Without this understanding, patients may be taking immunotherapy unnecessarily, at significant expense and toxicity risk.
“Toxicities from immunotherapy can occur at any time after initiation,” said Joshua Eric Reuss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, DC. And these “risks definitely continue into the adjuvant period.”
So far, the available evidence does suggest that the neoadjuvant phase of immunotherapy confers the greatest benefit, while adjuvant immunotherapy — which can last a year or longer — may expose patients to more costs and toxicities, with no clear benefit.
A 2024 meta-analysis, which included four trials of neoadjuvant-adjuvant immunotherapy and one trial of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC, suggested that the addition of adjuvant immunotherapy did not improve event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .59) or overall survival (HR, 1.18; P = .51) compared with neoadjuvant immunotherapy alone.
According to Spratt, “It’s very clear that the neoadjuvant phase is the more important of the two phases.” Given that, “we’re probably overtreating some patients,” said Spratt, also chairman of Radiation Oncology at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
Chaft agreed that “there’s very little data that we need the postoperative phase, and what data we do have is post hoc and limited.”
This evidence gap “has created considerable dilemmas” for oncologists and patients who are faced with “the challenge of deciding which therapeutic options or approach are best suited for each individual,” experts wrote in recent consensus recommendations from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
Clinicians may ultimately be left to make decisions about prescribing postoperative immunotherapy based on their experience and comfort level.
When Chaft’s patients have a pathologic complete response with immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant phase, “I’m comfortable stopping because the data would suggest they’re almost certainly cured,” she said.
For patients who have viable disease after neoadjuvant therapy, continuing an immunotherapy postoperatively when it didn’t work preoperatively “is not going to make a difference,” Chaft explained. In these cases, Chaft would look to enroll them in a clinical trial evaluating a different regimen because of the risk for relapse.
With patients who did well preoperatively but still have tumor left at the time of surgery, she would discuss continuing the immunotherapy or participating in a trial, she said.
All the FDA-approved regimens are covered by insurance, said Chaft. Clinicians are most comfortable with pembrolizumab because it is the most widely used immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC, she said. But, she added, “there’s really no strong differentiating data between any of the studies; all the results look very comparable.”
When assessing whether a patient may benefit from immunotherapy after surgery, Reuss looks at a range of factors, including disease stage, histology, gene mutations, and pathologic response. Reuss also weighs patient preferences. A patient coming from another country might only want a neoadjuvant regimen, for instance, he said.
That “isn’t exactly the kind of the level one evidence that one likes to see when making treatment decisions,” said Reuss. “Without prospective data, all we can do is cross-trial comparisons and assessment of subgroups.”
If a new regimen comes along that improves outcomes or decision-making, “I think we would pivot to that in a heartbeat,” he said.
But Will FDA Follow ODAC’s Recommendation?
“ODAC has made their point clear,” said Chaft. “Our patients deserve to know that whatever added risk and cost they’re incurring is merited by a clinical outcome.”
Despite the ODAC’s recommendation, it’s not guaranteed that the FDA will follow it.
An FDA spokesperson did not confirm the agency’s decision on the matter but noted that the FDA is “incorporating the panel’s advice.”
Spratt thinks that, going forward, companies will be held to “a higher bar,” but it’s unclear what that bar will look like.
“Whether this is a mandate or a strong recommendation, I think industry is definitely paying attention,” Spratt said. Companies that do not follow the guidance may risk not having their drug approved, “unless it’s just an absolute huge slam dunk of a major benefit to patients.”
In fact, according to Chaft, drug makers seeking approvals of novel entities in this space “won’t have a choice” but to follow any new trial design requirements from the FDA.
Still, getting answers may be a challenge.
Drug companies with immunotherapies already on the market are unlikely to invest the resources to conduct trials comparing the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, said Chaft. “It will take too long and cost too much,” she said.
And it remains unclear whether drug companies will decide to stop pursuing novel agents if approvals will ultimately require more expensive and time-consuming trials.
According to Chaft, oncologists have been discussing protocols that could help fill the knowledge gaps. Such trials will be conducted by the National Cancer Institute’s Cooperative Groups, she noted. But it’s early days.
For the time being, with comparative data from phase 3 trials years away, oncologists will have to work with the limited evidence and individual patients in front of them.
Chaft disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Guardant Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Merck. Reuss disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Arcus, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, CatalYm, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and that Georgetown has received research funding from Genentech/Roche, Verastem, Nuvalent, LUNGevity Foundation, Exelixis, Arcus, and Revolution Medicines. Spratt disclosed ties with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Since October 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three checkpoint inhibitors — pembrolizumab (Keytruda), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and most recently nivolumab (Opdivo) — alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy before surgery and as monotherapy after surgery to treat resectable NSCLC.
But the trials leading to each approval had a major design flaw. The studies failed to distinguish when patients with resectable NSCLC benefited from immunotherapy — before surgery, after surgery, or at both points.
That missing piece has left oncologists without definitive guidance on how best to treat their patients with resectable disease.
Jamie E. Chaft, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist and attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, was “surprised” that the FDA had approved the three immunotherapy combination regimens without this clarity. Clinicians are now left with studies that can’t evaluate the contribution of the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases, she said.
But that may soon change.
In July, an FDA advisory committee met to discuss the pending approval of durvalumab.
During this July meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) called out issues with AstraZeneca’s design of the trial, expressing concern that AstraZeneca had not followed the agency’s advice to compare patient outcomes with durvalumab in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases.
The ODAC panel ultimately voted unanimously in favor of requiring drug companies to demonstrate that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC. Several panelists said this requirement should extend beyond NSCLC to other tumor types.
“We need to understand who needs what therapy when,” Daniel Spratt, MD, chairman of the FDA’s ODAC, told Medscape Medical News.
But even if the FDA does require drug companies to assess the benefit of immunotherapy pre- and post-surgery, will oncologists get the answers they need for their patients with resectable NSCLC? Or will the new costly trial design requirements dead-end progress in this space?
Treating Patients Without Clear Evidence
Despite the ODAC’s strong urging to require — not simply request — that drug companies show patients with resectable NSCLC benefit from immunotherapy in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, the advisory panel did not think durvalumab’s approval should be delayed until the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question is answered.
A month later, in August, the FDA approved durvalumab for this indication.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) had already been approved 10 months earlier in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in this setting. And most recently, in October, the FDA added nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) to these approvals.
No trial, however, identified when patients benefited from the drug.
Without this understanding, patients may be taking immunotherapy unnecessarily, at significant expense and toxicity risk.
“Toxicities from immunotherapy can occur at any time after initiation,” said Joshua Eric Reuss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, DC. And these “risks definitely continue into the adjuvant period.”
So far, the available evidence does suggest that the neoadjuvant phase of immunotherapy confers the greatest benefit, while adjuvant immunotherapy — which can last a year or longer — may expose patients to more costs and toxicities, with no clear benefit.
A 2024 meta-analysis, which included four trials of neoadjuvant-adjuvant immunotherapy and one trial of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC, suggested that the addition of adjuvant immunotherapy did not improve event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .59) or overall survival (HR, 1.18; P = .51) compared with neoadjuvant immunotherapy alone.
According to Spratt, “It’s very clear that the neoadjuvant phase is the more important of the two phases.” Given that, “we’re probably overtreating some patients,” said Spratt, also chairman of Radiation Oncology at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
Chaft agreed that “there’s very little data that we need the postoperative phase, and what data we do have is post hoc and limited.”
This evidence gap “has created considerable dilemmas” for oncologists and patients who are faced with “the challenge of deciding which therapeutic options or approach are best suited for each individual,” experts wrote in recent consensus recommendations from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
Clinicians may ultimately be left to make decisions about prescribing postoperative immunotherapy based on their experience and comfort level.
When Chaft’s patients have a pathologic complete response with immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant phase, “I’m comfortable stopping because the data would suggest they’re almost certainly cured,” she said.
For patients who have viable disease after neoadjuvant therapy, continuing an immunotherapy postoperatively when it didn’t work preoperatively “is not going to make a difference,” Chaft explained. In these cases, Chaft would look to enroll them in a clinical trial evaluating a different regimen because of the risk for relapse.
With patients who did well preoperatively but still have tumor left at the time of surgery, she would discuss continuing the immunotherapy or participating in a trial, she said.
All the FDA-approved regimens are covered by insurance, said Chaft. Clinicians are most comfortable with pembrolizumab because it is the most widely used immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC, she said. But, she added, “there’s really no strong differentiating data between any of the studies; all the results look very comparable.”
When assessing whether a patient may benefit from immunotherapy after surgery, Reuss looks at a range of factors, including disease stage, histology, gene mutations, and pathologic response. Reuss also weighs patient preferences. A patient coming from another country might only want a neoadjuvant regimen, for instance, he said.
That “isn’t exactly the kind of the level one evidence that one likes to see when making treatment decisions,” said Reuss. “Without prospective data, all we can do is cross-trial comparisons and assessment of subgroups.”
If a new regimen comes along that improves outcomes or decision-making, “I think we would pivot to that in a heartbeat,” he said.
But Will FDA Follow ODAC’s Recommendation?
“ODAC has made their point clear,” said Chaft. “Our patients deserve to know that whatever added risk and cost they’re incurring is merited by a clinical outcome.”
Despite the ODAC’s recommendation, it’s not guaranteed that the FDA will follow it.
An FDA spokesperson did not confirm the agency’s decision on the matter but noted that the FDA is “incorporating the panel’s advice.”
Spratt thinks that, going forward, companies will be held to “a higher bar,” but it’s unclear what that bar will look like.
“Whether this is a mandate or a strong recommendation, I think industry is definitely paying attention,” Spratt said. Companies that do not follow the guidance may risk not having their drug approved, “unless it’s just an absolute huge slam dunk of a major benefit to patients.”
In fact, according to Chaft, drug makers seeking approvals of novel entities in this space “won’t have a choice” but to follow any new trial design requirements from the FDA.
Still, getting answers may be a challenge.
Drug companies with immunotherapies already on the market are unlikely to invest the resources to conduct trials comparing the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, said Chaft. “It will take too long and cost too much,” she said.
And it remains unclear whether drug companies will decide to stop pursuing novel agents if approvals will ultimately require more expensive and time-consuming trials.
According to Chaft, oncologists have been discussing protocols that could help fill the knowledge gaps. Such trials will be conducted by the National Cancer Institute’s Cooperative Groups, she noted. But it’s early days.
For the time being, with comparative data from phase 3 trials years away, oncologists will have to work with the limited evidence and individual patients in front of them.
Chaft disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Guardant Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Merck. Reuss disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Arcus, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, CatalYm, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and that Georgetown has received research funding from Genentech/Roche, Verastem, Nuvalent, LUNGevity Foundation, Exelixis, Arcus, and Revolution Medicines. Spratt disclosed ties with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Since October 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three checkpoint inhibitors — pembrolizumab (Keytruda), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and most recently nivolumab (Opdivo) — alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy before surgery and as monotherapy after surgery to treat resectable NSCLC.
But the trials leading to each approval had a major design flaw. The studies failed to distinguish when patients with resectable NSCLC benefited from immunotherapy — before surgery, after surgery, or at both points.
That missing piece has left oncologists without definitive guidance on how best to treat their patients with resectable disease.
Jamie E. Chaft, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist and attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, was “surprised” that the FDA had approved the three immunotherapy combination regimens without this clarity. Clinicians are now left with studies that can’t evaluate the contribution of the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases, she said.
But that may soon change.
In July, an FDA advisory committee met to discuss the pending approval of durvalumab.
During this July meeting, the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) called out issues with AstraZeneca’s design of the trial, expressing concern that AstraZeneca had not followed the agency’s advice to compare patient outcomes with durvalumab in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant phases.
The ODAC panel ultimately voted unanimously in favor of requiring drug companies to demonstrate that patients need immunotherapy both before and after surgery in resectable NSCLC. Several panelists said this requirement should extend beyond NSCLC to other tumor types.
“We need to understand who needs what therapy when,” Daniel Spratt, MD, chairman of the FDA’s ODAC, told Medscape Medical News.
But even if the FDA does require drug companies to assess the benefit of immunotherapy pre- and post-surgery, will oncologists get the answers they need for their patients with resectable NSCLC? Or will the new costly trial design requirements dead-end progress in this space?
Treating Patients Without Clear Evidence
Despite the ODAC’s strong urging to require — not simply request — that drug companies show patients with resectable NSCLC benefit from immunotherapy in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, the advisory panel did not think durvalumab’s approval should be delayed until the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant question is answered.
A month later, in August, the FDA approved durvalumab for this indication.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) had already been approved 10 months earlier in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in this setting. And most recently, in October, the FDA added nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) to these approvals.
No trial, however, identified when patients benefited from the drug.
Without this understanding, patients may be taking immunotherapy unnecessarily, at significant expense and toxicity risk.
“Toxicities from immunotherapy can occur at any time after initiation,” said Joshua Eric Reuss, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at Georgetown University’s Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, DC. And these “risks definitely continue into the adjuvant period.”
So far, the available evidence does suggest that the neoadjuvant phase of immunotherapy confers the greatest benefit, while adjuvant immunotherapy — which can last a year or longer — may expose patients to more costs and toxicities, with no clear benefit.
A 2024 meta-analysis, which included four trials of neoadjuvant-adjuvant immunotherapy and one trial of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC, suggested that the addition of adjuvant immunotherapy did not improve event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .59) or overall survival (HR, 1.18; P = .51) compared with neoadjuvant immunotherapy alone.
According to Spratt, “It’s very clear that the neoadjuvant phase is the more important of the two phases.” Given that, “we’re probably overtreating some patients,” said Spratt, also chairman of Radiation Oncology at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
Chaft agreed that “there’s very little data that we need the postoperative phase, and what data we do have is post hoc and limited.”
This evidence gap “has created considerable dilemmas” for oncologists and patients who are faced with “the challenge of deciding which therapeutic options or approach are best suited for each individual,” experts wrote in recent consensus recommendations from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
Clinicians may ultimately be left to make decisions about prescribing postoperative immunotherapy based on their experience and comfort level.
When Chaft’s patients have a pathologic complete response with immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant phase, “I’m comfortable stopping because the data would suggest they’re almost certainly cured,” she said.
For patients who have viable disease after neoadjuvant therapy, continuing an immunotherapy postoperatively when it didn’t work preoperatively “is not going to make a difference,” Chaft explained. In these cases, Chaft would look to enroll them in a clinical trial evaluating a different regimen because of the risk for relapse.
With patients who did well preoperatively but still have tumor left at the time of surgery, she would discuss continuing the immunotherapy or participating in a trial, she said.
All the FDA-approved regimens are covered by insurance, said Chaft. Clinicians are most comfortable with pembrolizumab because it is the most widely used immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC, she said. But, she added, “there’s really no strong differentiating data between any of the studies; all the results look very comparable.”
When assessing whether a patient may benefit from immunotherapy after surgery, Reuss looks at a range of factors, including disease stage, histology, gene mutations, and pathologic response. Reuss also weighs patient preferences. A patient coming from another country might only want a neoadjuvant regimen, for instance, he said.
That “isn’t exactly the kind of the level one evidence that one likes to see when making treatment decisions,” said Reuss. “Without prospective data, all we can do is cross-trial comparisons and assessment of subgroups.”
If a new regimen comes along that improves outcomes or decision-making, “I think we would pivot to that in a heartbeat,” he said.
But Will FDA Follow ODAC’s Recommendation?
“ODAC has made their point clear,” said Chaft. “Our patients deserve to know that whatever added risk and cost they’re incurring is merited by a clinical outcome.”
Despite the ODAC’s recommendation, it’s not guaranteed that the FDA will follow it.
An FDA spokesperson did not confirm the agency’s decision on the matter but noted that the FDA is “incorporating the panel’s advice.”
Spratt thinks that, going forward, companies will be held to “a higher bar,” but it’s unclear what that bar will look like.
“Whether this is a mandate or a strong recommendation, I think industry is definitely paying attention,” Spratt said. Companies that do not follow the guidance may risk not having their drug approved, “unless it’s just an absolute huge slam dunk of a major benefit to patients.”
In fact, according to Chaft, drug makers seeking approvals of novel entities in this space “won’t have a choice” but to follow any new trial design requirements from the FDA.
Still, getting answers may be a challenge.
Drug companies with immunotherapies already on the market are unlikely to invest the resources to conduct trials comparing the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, said Chaft. “It will take too long and cost too much,” she said.
And it remains unclear whether drug companies will decide to stop pursuing novel agents if approvals will ultimately require more expensive and time-consuming trials.
According to Chaft, oncologists have been discussing protocols that could help fill the knowledge gaps. Such trials will be conducted by the National Cancer Institute’s Cooperative Groups, she noted. But it’s early days.
For the time being, with comparative data from phase 3 trials years away, oncologists will have to work with the limited evidence and individual patients in front of them.
Chaft disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Guardant Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Merck. Reuss disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Arcus, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, CatalYm, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly, and that Georgetown has received research funding from Genentech/Roche, Verastem, Nuvalent, LUNGevity Foundation, Exelixis, Arcus, and Revolution Medicines. Spratt disclosed ties with Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cellular Therapies for Solid Tumors: The Next Big Thing?
The cutting edge of treating solid tumors with cell therapies got notably sharper in 2024.
First came the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in February 2024 of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel in unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on prior immunotherapy, the first cellular therapy for any solid tumor. Then came the August FDA approval of afamitresgene autoleucel in unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma with failed chemotherapy, the first engineered T-cell therapy for cancers in soft tissue.
“This was a pipe dream just a decade ago,” Alison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, lead author of a lifileucel study (NCT05640193), said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “At the start of 2024, we had no approvals of these kinds of products in solid cancers. Now we have two.”
As the director of Solid Tumor Cell Therapy and leader of Stanford Medicine’s Melanoma and Cutaneous Oncology Clinical Research Group, Betof Warner has been at the forefront of developing commercial cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).
“The approval of lifileucel increases confidence that we can get these therapies across the regulatory finish line and to patients,” Betof Warner said during the interview. She was not involved in the development of afamitresgene autoleucel.
‘Reverse Engineering’
In addition to her contributions to the work that led to lifileucel’s approval, Betof Warner was the lead author on the first consensus guidelines on management and best practices for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy.
Betof Warner began studying TILs after doing research with her mentors in immuno-oncology, Jedd D. Wolchok and Michael A. Postow. Their investigations — including one that Betof Warner coauthored — into how monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab or nivolumab, might extend the lives of people with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma inspired her to push further to find ways to minimize treatment while maximizing outcomes for patients. Betof Warner’s interest overall, she said in the interview, is in capitalizing on what can be learned about how the immune system controls cancer.
“What we know is that the immune system has the ability to kill cancer,” Betof Warner said. “Therefore we need to be thinking about how we can increase immune surveillance. How can we enhance that before a patient develops advanced cancer?
Betof Warner said that although TILs are now standard treatment in melanoma, there is about a 30% response rate compared with about a 50% response rate in immunotherapy, and the latter is easier for the patient to withstand.
“Antibodies on the frontline are better than going through a surgery and then waiting weeks to get your therapy,” Betof Warner said in the interview. “You can come into my clinic and get an antibody therapy in 30 minutes and go straight to work. TILs require patients to be in the hospital for weeks at a time and out of work for months at a time.”
In an effort to combine therapies to maximize best outcomes, a phase 3 trial (NCT05727904) is currently recruiting. The TILVANCE-301 trial will compare immunotherapy plus adoptive cell therapy vs immunotherapy alone in untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Betof Warner is not a part of this study.
Cell Therapies Include CAR T Cells and TCRT
In general, adoptive T-cell therapies such as TILs involve the isolation of autologous immune cells that are removed from the body and either expanded or modified to optimize their efficacy in fighting antigens, before their transfer to the patient as a living drug by infusion.
In addition to TILs, adoptive cell therapies for antitumor therapeutics include chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and engineered T-cell receptor therapy (TCRT).
In CAR T-cell therapy and TCRT, naive T cells are harvested from the patient’s blood then engineered to target a tumor. In TIL therapy, tumor-specific T cells are taken from the patient’s tumor. Once extracted, the respective cells are expanded billions of times and then delivered back to the patient’s body, said Betof Warner.
“The main promise of this approach is to generate responses in what we know as ‘cold’ tumors, or tumors that do not have a lot of endogenous T-cell infiltration or where the T cells are not working well, to bring in tumor targeting T cells and then trigger an immune response,” Betof Warner told an audience at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting.
TIL patients also receive interleukin (IL)-2 infusions to further stimulate the cells. In patients being treated with TCRT, they either receive low or no IL-2, Betof Warner said in her ASCO presentation, “Adopting Cutting-Edge Cell Therapies in Melanoma,” part of the session Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Next-Generation Cell-Based Therapies.
Decades in the Making
The National Cancer Institute began investigating TILs in the late 1980s, with the current National Cancer Institute (NCI) surgery chief, Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, leading the first-ever trials that showed TILs could shrink tumors in people with advanced melanoma.
Since then, NCI staff and others have also investigated TILs beyond melanoma and additional cell therapies based on CAR T cells and TCRT for antitumor therapeutics.
“TCRs are different from CAR Ts because they go after intracellular antigens instead of extracellular antigens,” said Betof Warner. “That has appeal because many of the tumor antigens we’re looking for will be intracellular.”
Because CAR T cells only target extracellular antigens, their utility is somewhat limited. Although several CAR T-cell therapies exist for blood cancers, there currently are no approved CAR T-cell therapies for solid tumors. However, several trials of CAR T cells in gastrointestinal cancers and melanoma are ongoing, said Betof Warner, who is not a part of these studies.
“We are starting to see early-phase efficacy in pediatric gliomas,” Betof Warner said, mentioning a study conducted by colleagues at Stanford who demonstrated potential for anti-GD2 CAR T-cell therapy in deadly pediatric diffuse midline gliomas, tumors on the spine and brain.
In their study, nine out of 11 participants (median age, 15 years) showed benefit from the cell therapy, with one participant’s tumors resolving completely. The results paved the way for the FDA to grant a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation for use of anti-GD2 CAR T cells in H3K27M-positive diffuse midline gliomas.
The investigators are now recruiting for a phase 1 trial (NCT04196413). Results of the initial study were published in Nature last month.
Another lesser-known cell therapy expected to advance at some point in the future for solid tumors is use of the body’s natural killer (NK) cells. “They’ve been known about for a long time, but they are more difficult to regulate, which is one reason why it has taken longer to make NK cell therapies,” said Betof Warner, who is not involved in the study of NK cells. “One of their advantages is that, potentially, there could be an ‘off the shelf’ NK product. They don’t necessarily have to be made with autologous cells.”
Risk-Benefit Profiles Depend on Mechanism of Action
If the corresponding TCR sequence of a tumor antigen is known, said Betof Warner, it is possible to use leukapheresis to generate naive circulating lymphocytes. Once infused, the manufactured TCRTs will activate in the body the same as native cells because the signaling is the same.
An advantage to TCRT compared with CAR T-cell therapy is that it targets intracellular proteins, which are significantly present in the tumor, Betof Warner said in her presentation at ASCO 2024. She clarified that tumors will usually be screened for the presence of this antigen before a patient is selected for treatment with that particular therapy, because not all antigens are highly expressed in every tumor.
“Furthermore, the tumor antigen has to be presented by a major histocompatibility complex, meaning there are human leukocyte antigen restrictions, which impacts patient selection,” she said.
A risk with both TCRT and CAR T-cell therapy, according to Betof Warner, is that because there are often shared antigens between tumor and normal tissues, on-target/off-tumor toxicity is a risk.
“TILs are different because they are nonengineered, at least not for antigen recognition. They are polyclonal and go after multiple targets,” Betof Warner said. “TCRs and CARs are engineered to go after one target. So, TILs have much lower rates of on-tumor/off-target effects, vs when you engineer a very high affinity receptor like a TCR or CAR.”
A good example of how this amplification of TCR affinity can lead to poor outcomes is in metastatic melanoma, said Betof Warner.
In investigations (NCI-07-C-0174 and NCI-07-C-0175) of TCRT in metastatic melanoma, for example, the researchers were targeting MART-1 or gp100, which are expressed in melanocytes.
“The problem was that these antigens are also expressed in the eyes and ears, so it caused eye inflammation and hearing loss in a number of patients because it wasn’t specific enough for the tumor,” said Betof Warner. “So, if that target is highly expressed on normal tissue, then you have a high risk.”
Promise of PRAME
Betof Warner said the most promising TCRT at present is the investigational autologous cell therapy IMA203 (NCT03688124), which targets the preferentially expressed antigen (PRAME). Although PRAME is found in many tumors, this testis antigen does not tend to express in normal, healthy adult tissues. Betof Warner is not affiliated with this study.
“It’s maybe the most exciting TCRT cell in melanoma,” Betof Warner told her audience at the ASCO 2024 meeting. Because the expression rate of PRAME in cutaneous and uveal melanoma is at or above 95% and 90%, respectively, she said “it is a really good target in melanoma.”
Phase 1a results reported in late 2023 from a first-in-human trial of IMA203 involving 13 persons with highly advanced melanoma and a median of 5.5 previous treatments showed a 50% objective response rate in the 12 evaluable results. The duration of response ranged between 2.2 and 14.7 months (median follow-up, 14 months).
The safety profile of the treatment was favorable, with no grade 3 adverse events occurring in more than 10% of the cohort, and no grade 5 adverse events at all.
Phase 1b results published in October by maker Immatics showed that in 28 heavily pretreated metastatic melanoma patients, IMA203 had a confirmed objective response rate of 54% with a median duration of response of 12.1 months, while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile.
Accelerated Approvals, Boxed Warnings
The FDA granted accelerated approvals for both lifileucel, the TIL therapy, and afamitresgene autoleucel, the TCRT.
Both were approved with boxed warnings. Lifileucel’s warning is for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, and cardiopulmonary and renal impairment. Afamitresgene autoleucel’s boxed warning is for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome, which may be severe or life-threatening.
With these approvals, the bar is now raised on TILs and TCRTs, said Betof Warner.
The lifileucel trial studied 73 patients whose melanoma had continued to metastasize despite treatment with a programmed cell death protein (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand (PD-L1)–targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor and a BRAF inhibitor (if appropriate based on tumor mutation status), and whose lifileucel dose was at least 7.5 billion cells (the approved dose). The cohort also received a median of six IL-2 (aldesleukin) doses.
The objective response rate was 31.5% (95% CI, 21.1-43.4), and median duration of response was not reached (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.1).
In the afamitresgene autoleucel study, 44 of 52 patients with synovial sarcoma received leukapheresis and a single infusion of afamitresgene autoleucel.
The overall response rate was 43.2% (95% CI, 28.4-59.0). The median time to response was 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.4-8), and the median duration of response was 6 months (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.6). Among patients who were responsive to the treatment, 45.6% and 39.0% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer and 12 months or longer, respectively.
New Hope for Patients
Betof Warner and her colleagues are now recruiting for an open-label, phase 1/2 investigation of the safety and efficacy of the TIL therapy OBX-115 in adult advanced solid tumors in melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer. The first-in-human results of a previous trial were presented at the ASCO 2024 meeting, and OBX-115 received FDA fast track designation in July.
“I think the results are really promising,” said Betof Warner. “This is an engineered TIL that does not require administering IL-2 to the patient. There were four out of the nine patients who responded to the treatment and there were no dose-limiting toxicities, no cytokine and no intracranial — all of which is excellent.”
For Betof Warner, the possibility that by using their own immune system, patients with advanced and refractory cancers could soon have a one-time treatment with a cell therapy rather than innumerable bouts of chemotherapy pushes her onward.
“The idea that we can treat cancer one time and have it not recur for years — that’s pushing the start of saying there’s a cure of cancer. That a person could move on from cancer like they move on from an infection. That is the potential of this work. We’re not there yet, but that’s where we need to think and dream big,” she said.
Betof Warner disclosed consulting/advisory roles with BluePath Solutions, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Immatics, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding and travel expenses from Iovance Biotherapeutics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The cutting edge of treating solid tumors with cell therapies got notably sharper in 2024.
First came the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in February 2024 of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel in unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on prior immunotherapy, the first cellular therapy for any solid tumor. Then came the August FDA approval of afamitresgene autoleucel in unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma with failed chemotherapy, the first engineered T-cell therapy for cancers in soft tissue.
“This was a pipe dream just a decade ago,” Alison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, lead author of a lifileucel study (NCT05640193), said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “At the start of 2024, we had no approvals of these kinds of products in solid cancers. Now we have two.”
As the director of Solid Tumor Cell Therapy and leader of Stanford Medicine’s Melanoma and Cutaneous Oncology Clinical Research Group, Betof Warner has been at the forefront of developing commercial cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).
“The approval of lifileucel increases confidence that we can get these therapies across the regulatory finish line and to patients,” Betof Warner said during the interview. She was not involved in the development of afamitresgene autoleucel.
‘Reverse Engineering’
In addition to her contributions to the work that led to lifileucel’s approval, Betof Warner was the lead author on the first consensus guidelines on management and best practices for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy.
Betof Warner began studying TILs after doing research with her mentors in immuno-oncology, Jedd D. Wolchok and Michael A. Postow. Their investigations — including one that Betof Warner coauthored — into how monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab or nivolumab, might extend the lives of people with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma inspired her to push further to find ways to minimize treatment while maximizing outcomes for patients. Betof Warner’s interest overall, she said in the interview, is in capitalizing on what can be learned about how the immune system controls cancer.
“What we know is that the immune system has the ability to kill cancer,” Betof Warner said. “Therefore we need to be thinking about how we can increase immune surveillance. How can we enhance that before a patient develops advanced cancer?
Betof Warner said that although TILs are now standard treatment in melanoma, there is about a 30% response rate compared with about a 50% response rate in immunotherapy, and the latter is easier for the patient to withstand.
“Antibodies on the frontline are better than going through a surgery and then waiting weeks to get your therapy,” Betof Warner said in the interview. “You can come into my clinic and get an antibody therapy in 30 minutes and go straight to work. TILs require patients to be in the hospital for weeks at a time and out of work for months at a time.”
In an effort to combine therapies to maximize best outcomes, a phase 3 trial (NCT05727904) is currently recruiting. The TILVANCE-301 trial will compare immunotherapy plus adoptive cell therapy vs immunotherapy alone in untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Betof Warner is not a part of this study.
Cell Therapies Include CAR T Cells and TCRT
In general, adoptive T-cell therapies such as TILs involve the isolation of autologous immune cells that are removed from the body and either expanded or modified to optimize their efficacy in fighting antigens, before their transfer to the patient as a living drug by infusion.
In addition to TILs, adoptive cell therapies for antitumor therapeutics include chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and engineered T-cell receptor therapy (TCRT).
In CAR T-cell therapy and TCRT, naive T cells are harvested from the patient’s blood then engineered to target a tumor. In TIL therapy, tumor-specific T cells are taken from the patient’s tumor. Once extracted, the respective cells are expanded billions of times and then delivered back to the patient’s body, said Betof Warner.
“The main promise of this approach is to generate responses in what we know as ‘cold’ tumors, or tumors that do not have a lot of endogenous T-cell infiltration or where the T cells are not working well, to bring in tumor targeting T cells and then trigger an immune response,” Betof Warner told an audience at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting.
TIL patients also receive interleukin (IL)-2 infusions to further stimulate the cells. In patients being treated with TCRT, they either receive low or no IL-2, Betof Warner said in her ASCO presentation, “Adopting Cutting-Edge Cell Therapies in Melanoma,” part of the session Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Next-Generation Cell-Based Therapies.
Decades in the Making
The National Cancer Institute began investigating TILs in the late 1980s, with the current National Cancer Institute (NCI) surgery chief, Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, leading the first-ever trials that showed TILs could shrink tumors in people with advanced melanoma.
Since then, NCI staff and others have also investigated TILs beyond melanoma and additional cell therapies based on CAR T cells and TCRT for antitumor therapeutics.
“TCRs are different from CAR Ts because they go after intracellular antigens instead of extracellular antigens,” said Betof Warner. “That has appeal because many of the tumor antigens we’re looking for will be intracellular.”
Because CAR T cells only target extracellular antigens, their utility is somewhat limited. Although several CAR T-cell therapies exist for blood cancers, there currently are no approved CAR T-cell therapies for solid tumors. However, several trials of CAR T cells in gastrointestinal cancers and melanoma are ongoing, said Betof Warner, who is not a part of these studies.
“We are starting to see early-phase efficacy in pediatric gliomas,” Betof Warner said, mentioning a study conducted by colleagues at Stanford who demonstrated potential for anti-GD2 CAR T-cell therapy in deadly pediatric diffuse midline gliomas, tumors on the spine and brain.
In their study, nine out of 11 participants (median age, 15 years) showed benefit from the cell therapy, with one participant’s tumors resolving completely. The results paved the way for the FDA to grant a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation for use of anti-GD2 CAR T cells in H3K27M-positive diffuse midline gliomas.
The investigators are now recruiting for a phase 1 trial (NCT04196413). Results of the initial study were published in Nature last month.
Another lesser-known cell therapy expected to advance at some point in the future for solid tumors is use of the body’s natural killer (NK) cells. “They’ve been known about for a long time, but they are more difficult to regulate, which is one reason why it has taken longer to make NK cell therapies,” said Betof Warner, who is not involved in the study of NK cells. “One of their advantages is that, potentially, there could be an ‘off the shelf’ NK product. They don’t necessarily have to be made with autologous cells.”
Risk-Benefit Profiles Depend on Mechanism of Action
If the corresponding TCR sequence of a tumor antigen is known, said Betof Warner, it is possible to use leukapheresis to generate naive circulating lymphocytes. Once infused, the manufactured TCRTs will activate in the body the same as native cells because the signaling is the same.
An advantage to TCRT compared with CAR T-cell therapy is that it targets intracellular proteins, which are significantly present in the tumor, Betof Warner said in her presentation at ASCO 2024. She clarified that tumors will usually be screened for the presence of this antigen before a patient is selected for treatment with that particular therapy, because not all antigens are highly expressed in every tumor.
“Furthermore, the tumor antigen has to be presented by a major histocompatibility complex, meaning there are human leukocyte antigen restrictions, which impacts patient selection,” she said.
A risk with both TCRT and CAR T-cell therapy, according to Betof Warner, is that because there are often shared antigens between tumor and normal tissues, on-target/off-tumor toxicity is a risk.
“TILs are different because they are nonengineered, at least not for antigen recognition. They are polyclonal and go after multiple targets,” Betof Warner said. “TCRs and CARs are engineered to go after one target. So, TILs have much lower rates of on-tumor/off-target effects, vs when you engineer a very high affinity receptor like a TCR or CAR.”
A good example of how this amplification of TCR affinity can lead to poor outcomes is in metastatic melanoma, said Betof Warner.
In investigations (NCI-07-C-0174 and NCI-07-C-0175) of TCRT in metastatic melanoma, for example, the researchers were targeting MART-1 or gp100, which are expressed in melanocytes.
“The problem was that these antigens are also expressed in the eyes and ears, so it caused eye inflammation and hearing loss in a number of patients because it wasn’t specific enough for the tumor,” said Betof Warner. “So, if that target is highly expressed on normal tissue, then you have a high risk.”
Promise of PRAME
Betof Warner said the most promising TCRT at present is the investigational autologous cell therapy IMA203 (NCT03688124), which targets the preferentially expressed antigen (PRAME). Although PRAME is found in many tumors, this testis antigen does not tend to express in normal, healthy adult tissues. Betof Warner is not affiliated with this study.
“It’s maybe the most exciting TCRT cell in melanoma,” Betof Warner told her audience at the ASCO 2024 meeting. Because the expression rate of PRAME in cutaneous and uveal melanoma is at or above 95% and 90%, respectively, she said “it is a really good target in melanoma.”
Phase 1a results reported in late 2023 from a first-in-human trial of IMA203 involving 13 persons with highly advanced melanoma and a median of 5.5 previous treatments showed a 50% objective response rate in the 12 evaluable results. The duration of response ranged between 2.2 and 14.7 months (median follow-up, 14 months).
The safety profile of the treatment was favorable, with no grade 3 adverse events occurring in more than 10% of the cohort, and no grade 5 adverse events at all.
Phase 1b results published in October by maker Immatics showed that in 28 heavily pretreated metastatic melanoma patients, IMA203 had a confirmed objective response rate of 54% with a median duration of response of 12.1 months, while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile.
Accelerated Approvals, Boxed Warnings
The FDA granted accelerated approvals for both lifileucel, the TIL therapy, and afamitresgene autoleucel, the TCRT.
Both were approved with boxed warnings. Lifileucel’s warning is for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, and cardiopulmonary and renal impairment. Afamitresgene autoleucel’s boxed warning is for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome, which may be severe or life-threatening.
With these approvals, the bar is now raised on TILs and TCRTs, said Betof Warner.
The lifileucel trial studied 73 patients whose melanoma had continued to metastasize despite treatment with a programmed cell death protein (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand (PD-L1)–targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor and a BRAF inhibitor (if appropriate based on tumor mutation status), and whose lifileucel dose was at least 7.5 billion cells (the approved dose). The cohort also received a median of six IL-2 (aldesleukin) doses.
The objective response rate was 31.5% (95% CI, 21.1-43.4), and median duration of response was not reached (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.1).
In the afamitresgene autoleucel study, 44 of 52 patients with synovial sarcoma received leukapheresis and a single infusion of afamitresgene autoleucel.
The overall response rate was 43.2% (95% CI, 28.4-59.0). The median time to response was 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.4-8), and the median duration of response was 6 months (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.6). Among patients who were responsive to the treatment, 45.6% and 39.0% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer and 12 months or longer, respectively.
New Hope for Patients
Betof Warner and her colleagues are now recruiting for an open-label, phase 1/2 investigation of the safety and efficacy of the TIL therapy OBX-115 in adult advanced solid tumors in melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer. The first-in-human results of a previous trial were presented at the ASCO 2024 meeting, and OBX-115 received FDA fast track designation in July.
“I think the results are really promising,” said Betof Warner. “This is an engineered TIL that does not require administering IL-2 to the patient. There were four out of the nine patients who responded to the treatment and there were no dose-limiting toxicities, no cytokine and no intracranial — all of which is excellent.”
For Betof Warner, the possibility that by using their own immune system, patients with advanced and refractory cancers could soon have a one-time treatment with a cell therapy rather than innumerable bouts of chemotherapy pushes her onward.
“The idea that we can treat cancer one time and have it not recur for years — that’s pushing the start of saying there’s a cure of cancer. That a person could move on from cancer like they move on from an infection. That is the potential of this work. We’re not there yet, but that’s where we need to think and dream big,” she said.
Betof Warner disclosed consulting/advisory roles with BluePath Solutions, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Immatics, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding and travel expenses from Iovance Biotherapeutics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The cutting edge of treating solid tumors with cell therapies got notably sharper in 2024.
First came the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in February 2024 of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy lifileucel in unresectable or metastatic melanoma that had progressed on prior immunotherapy, the first cellular therapy for any solid tumor. Then came the August FDA approval of afamitresgene autoleucel in unresectable or metastatic synovial sarcoma with failed chemotherapy, the first engineered T-cell therapy for cancers in soft tissue.
“This was a pipe dream just a decade ago,” Alison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, lead author of a lifileucel study (NCT05640193), said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “At the start of 2024, we had no approvals of these kinds of products in solid cancers. Now we have two.”
As the director of Solid Tumor Cell Therapy and leader of Stanford Medicine’s Melanoma and Cutaneous Oncology Clinical Research Group, Betof Warner has been at the forefront of developing commercial cell therapy using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).
“The approval of lifileucel increases confidence that we can get these therapies across the regulatory finish line and to patients,” Betof Warner said during the interview. She was not involved in the development of afamitresgene autoleucel.
‘Reverse Engineering’
In addition to her contributions to the work that led to lifileucel’s approval, Betof Warner was the lead author on the first consensus guidelines on management and best practices for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy.
Betof Warner began studying TILs after doing research with her mentors in immuno-oncology, Jedd D. Wolchok and Michael A. Postow. Their investigations — including one that Betof Warner coauthored — into how monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors, such as ipilimumab or nivolumab, might extend the lives of people with advanced unresectable or metastatic melanoma inspired her to push further to find ways to minimize treatment while maximizing outcomes for patients. Betof Warner’s interest overall, she said in the interview, is in capitalizing on what can be learned about how the immune system controls cancer.
“What we know is that the immune system has the ability to kill cancer,” Betof Warner said. “Therefore we need to be thinking about how we can increase immune surveillance. How can we enhance that before a patient develops advanced cancer?
Betof Warner said that although TILs are now standard treatment in melanoma, there is about a 30% response rate compared with about a 50% response rate in immunotherapy, and the latter is easier for the patient to withstand.
“Antibodies on the frontline are better than going through a surgery and then waiting weeks to get your therapy,” Betof Warner said in the interview. “You can come into my clinic and get an antibody therapy in 30 minutes and go straight to work. TILs require patients to be in the hospital for weeks at a time and out of work for months at a time.”
In an effort to combine therapies to maximize best outcomes, a phase 3 trial (NCT05727904) is currently recruiting. The TILVANCE-301 trial will compare immunotherapy plus adoptive cell therapy vs immunotherapy alone in untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Betof Warner is not a part of this study.
Cell Therapies Include CAR T Cells and TCRT
In general, adoptive T-cell therapies such as TILs involve the isolation of autologous immune cells that are removed from the body and either expanded or modified to optimize their efficacy in fighting antigens, before their transfer to the patient as a living drug by infusion.
In addition to TILs, adoptive cell therapies for antitumor therapeutics include chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and engineered T-cell receptor therapy (TCRT).
In CAR T-cell therapy and TCRT, naive T cells are harvested from the patient’s blood then engineered to target a tumor. In TIL therapy, tumor-specific T cells are taken from the patient’s tumor. Once extracted, the respective cells are expanded billions of times and then delivered back to the patient’s body, said Betof Warner.
“The main promise of this approach is to generate responses in what we know as ‘cold’ tumors, or tumors that do not have a lot of endogenous T-cell infiltration or where the T cells are not working well, to bring in tumor targeting T cells and then trigger an immune response,” Betof Warner told an audience at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting.
TIL patients also receive interleukin (IL)-2 infusions to further stimulate the cells. In patients being treated with TCRT, they either receive low or no IL-2, Betof Warner said in her ASCO presentation, “Adopting Cutting-Edge Cell Therapies in Melanoma,” part of the session Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Next-Generation Cell-Based Therapies.
Decades in the Making
The National Cancer Institute began investigating TILs in the late 1980s, with the current National Cancer Institute (NCI) surgery chief, Steven Rosenberg, MD, PhD, leading the first-ever trials that showed TILs could shrink tumors in people with advanced melanoma.
Since then, NCI staff and others have also investigated TILs beyond melanoma and additional cell therapies based on CAR T cells and TCRT for antitumor therapeutics.
“TCRs are different from CAR Ts because they go after intracellular antigens instead of extracellular antigens,” said Betof Warner. “That has appeal because many of the tumor antigens we’re looking for will be intracellular.”
Because CAR T cells only target extracellular antigens, their utility is somewhat limited. Although several CAR T-cell therapies exist for blood cancers, there currently are no approved CAR T-cell therapies for solid tumors. However, several trials of CAR T cells in gastrointestinal cancers and melanoma are ongoing, said Betof Warner, who is not a part of these studies.
“We are starting to see early-phase efficacy in pediatric gliomas,” Betof Warner said, mentioning a study conducted by colleagues at Stanford who demonstrated potential for anti-GD2 CAR T-cell therapy in deadly pediatric diffuse midline gliomas, tumors on the spine and brain.
In their study, nine out of 11 participants (median age, 15 years) showed benefit from the cell therapy, with one participant’s tumors resolving completely. The results paved the way for the FDA to grant a Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation for use of anti-GD2 CAR T cells in H3K27M-positive diffuse midline gliomas.
The investigators are now recruiting for a phase 1 trial (NCT04196413). Results of the initial study were published in Nature last month.
Another lesser-known cell therapy expected to advance at some point in the future for solid tumors is use of the body’s natural killer (NK) cells. “They’ve been known about for a long time, but they are more difficult to regulate, which is one reason why it has taken longer to make NK cell therapies,” said Betof Warner, who is not involved in the study of NK cells. “One of their advantages is that, potentially, there could be an ‘off the shelf’ NK product. They don’t necessarily have to be made with autologous cells.”
Risk-Benefit Profiles Depend on Mechanism of Action
If the corresponding TCR sequence of a tumor antigen is known, said Betof Warner, it is possible to use leukapheresis to generate naive circulating lymphocytes. Once infused, the manufactured TCRTs will activate in the body the same as native cells because the signaling is the same.
An advantage to TCRT compared with CAR T-cell therapy is that it targets intracellular proteins, which are significantly present in the tumor, Betof Warner said in her presentation at ASCO 2024. She clarified that tumors will usually be screened for the presence of this antigen before a patient is selected for treatment with that particular therapy, because not all antigens are highly expressed in every tumor.
“Furthermore, the tumor antigen has to be presented by a major histocompatibility complex, meaning there are human leukocyte antigen restrictions, which impacts patient selection,” she said.
A risk with both TCRT and CAR T-cell therapy, according to Betof Warner, is that because there are often shared antigens between tumor and normal tissues, on-target/off-tumor toxicity is a risk.
“TILs are different because they are nonengineered, at least not for antigen recognition. They are polyclonal and go after multiple targets,” Betof Warner said. “TCRs and CARs are engineered to go after one target. So, TILs have much lower rates of on-tumor/off-target effects, vs when you engineer a very high affinity receptor like a TCR or CAR.”
A good example of how this amplification of TCR affinity can lead to poor outcomes is in metastatic melanoma, said Betof Warner.
In investigations (NCI-07-C-0174 and NCI-07-C-0175) of TCRT in metastatic melanoma, for example, the researchers were targeting MART-1 or gp100, which are expressed in melanocytes.
“The problem was that these antigens are also expressed in the eyes and ears, so it caused eye inflammation and hearing loss in a number of patients because it wasn’t specific enough for the tumor,” said Betof Warner. “So, if that target is highly expressed on normal tissue, then you have a high risk.”
Promise of PRAME
Betof Warner said the most promising TCRT at present is the investigational autologous cell therapy IMA203 (NCT03688124), which targets the preferentially expressed antigen (PRAME). Although PRAME is found in many tumors, this testis antigen does not tend to express in normal, healthy adult tissues. Betof Warner is not affiliated with this study.
“It’s maybe the most exciting TCRT cell in melanoma,” Betof Warner told her audience at the ASCO 2024 meeting. Because the expression rate of PRAME in cutaneous and uveal melanoma is at or above 95% and 90%, respectively, she said “it is a really good target in melanoma.”
Phase 1a results reported in late 2023 from a first-in-human trial of IMA203 involving 13 persons with highly advanced melanoma and a median of 5.5 previous treatments showed a 50% objective response rate in the 12 evaluable results. The duration of response ranged between 2.2 and 14.7 months (median follow-up, 14 months).
The safety profile of the treatment was favorable, with no grade 3 adverse events occurring in more than 10% of the cohort, and no grade 5 adverse events at all.
Phase 1b results published in October by maker Immatics showed that in 28 heavily pretreated metastatic melanoma patients, IMA203 had a confirmed objective response rate of 54% with a median duration of response of 12.1 months, while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile.
Accelerated Approvals, Boxed Warnings
The FDA granted accelerated approvals for both lifileucel, the TIL therapy, and afamitresgene autoleucel, the TCRT.
Both were approved with boxed warnings. Lifileucel’s warning is for treatment-related mortality, prolonged severe cytopenia, severe infection, and cardiopulmonary and renal impairment. Afamitresgene autoleucel’s boxed warning is for serious or fatal cytokine release syndrome, which may be severe or life-threatening.
With these approvals, the bar is now raised on TILs and TCRTs, said Betof Warner.
The lifileucel trial studied 73 patients whose melanoma had continued to metastasize despite treatment with a programmed cell death protein (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand (PD-L1)–targeted immune checkpoint inhibitor and a BRAF inhibitor (if appropriate based on tumor mutation status), and whose lifileucel dose was at least 7.5 billion cells (the approved dose). The cohort also received a median of six IL-2 (aldesleukin) doses.
The objective response rate was 31.5% (95% CI, 21.1-43.4), and median duration of response was not reached (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.1).
In the afamitresgene autoleucel study, 44 of 52 patients with synovial sarcoma received leukapheresis and a single infusion of afamitresgene autoleucel.
The overall response rate was 43.2% (95% CI, 28.4-59.0). The median time to response was 4.9 weeks (95% CI, 4.4-8), and the median duration of response was 6 months (lower bound of 95% CI, 4.6). Among patients who were responsive to the treatment, 45.6% and 39.0% had a duration of response of 6 months or longer and 12 months or longer, respectively.
New Hope for Patients
Betof Warner and her colleagues are now recruiting for an open-label, phase 1/2 investigation of the safety and efficacy of the TIL therapy OBX-115 in adult advanced solid tumors in melanoma or non–small cell lung cancer. The first-in-human results of a previous trial were presented at the ASCO 2024 meeting, and OBX-115 received FDA fast track designation in July.
“I think the results are really promising,” said Betof Warner. “This is an engineered TIL that does not require administering IL-2 to the patient. There were four out of the nine patients who responded to the treatment and there were no dose-limiting toxicities, no cytokine and no intracranial — all of which is excellent.”
For Betof Warner, the possibility that by using their own immune system, patients with advanced and refractory cancers could soon have a one-time treatment with a cell therapy rather than innumerable bouts of chemotherapy pushes her onward.
“The idea that we can treat cancer one time and have it not recur for years — that’s pushing the start of saying there’s a cure of cancer. That a person could move on from cancer like they move on from an infection. That is the potential of this work. We’re not there yet, but that’s where we need to think and dream big,” she said.
Betof Warner disclosed consulting/advisory roles with BluePath Solutions, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Immatics, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding and travel expenses from Iovance Biotherapeutics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.