Liam Davenport

AMSTERDAM — The monoclonal antibody bimekizumab (Bimzelx) achieves significant and clinically meaningful improvements in moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) that are maintained well beyond the initial 1-year clinical trial treatment period, according to new data from an open-label extension period.

“Efficacy and health-related quality-of-life outcomes were maintained through 2 years of treatment,” study presenter Christos C. Zouboulis, MD, professor of dermatology, venereology, and allergology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Dessau, Germany, said at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“No new safety signals were observed,” he added. “These data highlight the durability and consistency of bimekizumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa,” Zouboulis concluded.
 

Efficacy Maintained

“This is the type of long-term data that clinicians hope to see in large phase 3 trials for hidradenitis suppurativa medications,” commented Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, clinical associate professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

She told this news organization that, beyond maintained improvement of patient-reported quality of life, the results are “raising the bar in terms of measuring treatment success,” with over three quarters of patients achieving a high level of response on the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) scale at the final 96-week follow-up.

“Clinicians and patients have struggled with maintaining treatment efficacy over time with the first [Food and Drug Administration]–approved class of biologics for hidradenitis suppurativa — TNF [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha antagonists,” Hsiao said. She emphasized that sustained treatment efficacy will reduce the need for continued treatment switching and “hopefully improve treatment adherence.”

“It was also helpful to see that, consistent with studies of bimekizumab in psoriasis, rates of oral candidiasis appear to decrease with prolonged exposure over 2 years, though as with any open-label extension study, study dropout is a limitation,” she said.

“The availability of long-term efficacy and safety data, such as those shown in this study, will help guide shared decision-making discussions with our patients.” Overall, Hsiao believes there is “much to be excited about in the field of hidradenitis suppurativa, with a robust pipeline of potential treatments.”
 

One-Year Extension Study

HS is a “chronic and debilitating inflammatory skin disease,” Zouboulis told the audience. He noted that interleukin (IL)–17F and IL-17A are highly expressed in lesional skin and play a role in the disease immunopathogenesis.

Bimekizumab is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits both IL-17F and IL-17A. It has previously demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in patients with moderate to severe HS in the phase 3 BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II trials evaluating several dosing regimens.

Zouboulis said the current analysis combines data from the two phase 3 studies with the BE HEARD EXT open-label extension study, in which patients from both trials were continued on bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks.

Of the 1014 patients initially enrolled in the two trials, 556 continued into the open-label extension. Their average age was 36.6 years, and 53.8% were women. The majority (80.6%) were White. Of the 556 patients enrolled in the extension, 446 completed the 1-year extension study.

The average draining tunnel count at baseline was 3.8, and 54.5% had Hurley stage II disease; the remaining 45.5% had stage III disease. The mean total Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score at baseline was 11.0, indicating the HS was having a very large impact on the patients’ lives.

After the 16-week initial treatment period and the maintenance treatment period out to 48 weeks, 64.0% of patients achieved HiSCR75, indicating at least a 75% reduction from baseline in the total abscess and inflammatory nodule count, rising to 77.1% at the end of the open-label extension, after a total follow-up of 96 weeks.

HiSCR100 scores, indicating a 100% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule counts, were achieved by 30.2% of 556 patients after 48 weeks and 44.2% of 446 at the 96-week follow-up.

These findings were mirrored by substantial reductions on the International HS Severity Score System, with a 70.3% reduction over baseline at 48 weeks and a 79.8% reduction at the final follow-up.

There were also “clinically meaningful” reductions in the total draining tunnel count at 1 year that were further reduced at 2 years, Zouboulis reported, at a 57.5% reduction over baseline, increasing to 73.7% by 96 weeks. The mean draining tunnel count at the end of follow-up was 1.1.

Over the full 96 weeks, the mean DLQI score reduced from 11.0 to 4.7, with 33.9% of patients achieving a score of 0 or 1 on the scale, which he said is basically patients saying: “I don’t have disease now.”

Finally, the safety data showed that there were “no differences compared to what we knew before,” Zouboulis said, with the most common treatment-related adverse events being hidradenitis, coronavirus infection, and oral candidiasis. There were few serious and severe treatment-related adverse events, and few that led to treatment discontinuation.

The study was funded by UCB.Zouboulis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, EAD, European Union, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, GSK, InflaRx, MSD, Novartis, Relaxera, UCB, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Idorsia, Incyte, L’Oréal, NAOS-BIODERMA, Pfizer, PM, Sanofi. Hsiao is on the board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation and has declared relationships with AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM — The monoclonal antibody bimekizumab (Bimzelx) achieves significant and clinically meaningful improvements in moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) that are maintained well beyond the initial 1-year clinical trial treatment period, according to new data from an open-label extension period.

“Efficacy and health-related quality-of-life outcomes were maintained through 2 years of treatment,” study presenter Christos C. Zouboulis, MD, professor of dermatology, venereology, and allergology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Dessau, Germany, said at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“No new safety signals were observed,” he added. “These data highlight the durability and consistency of bimekizumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa,” Zouboulis concluded.
 

Efficacy Maintained

“This is the type of long-term data that clinicians hope to see in large phase 3 trials for hidradenitis suppurativa medications,” commented Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, clinical associate professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

She told this news organization that, beyond maintained improvement of patient-reported quality of life, the results are “raising the bar in terms of measuring treatment success,” with over three quarters of patients achieving a high level of response on the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) scale at the final 96-week follow-up.

“Clinicians and patients have struggled with maintaining treatment efficacy over time with the first [Food and Drug Administration]–approved class of biologics for hidradenitis suppurativa — TNF [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha antagonists,” Hsiao said. She emphasized that sustained treatment efficacy will reduce the need for continued treatment switching and “hopefully improve treatment adherence.”

“It was also helpful to see that, consistent with studies of bimekizumab in psoriasis, rates of oral candidiasis appear to decrease with prolonged exposure over 2 years, though as with any open-label extension study, study dropout is a limitation,” she said.

“The availability of long-term efficacy and safety data, such as those shown in this study, will help guide shared decision-making discussions with our patients.” Overall, Hsiao believes there is “much to be excited about in the field of hidradenitis suppurativa, with a robust pipeline of potential treatments.”
 

One-Year Extension Study

HS is a “chronic and debilitating inflammatory skin disease,” Zouboulis told the audience. He noted that interleukin (IL)–17F and IL-17A are highly expressed in lesional skin and play a role in the disease immunopathogenesis.

Bimekizumab is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits both IL-17F and IL-17A. It has previously demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in patients with moderate to severe HS in the phase 3 BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II trials evaluating several dosing regimens.

Zouboulis said the current analysis combines data from the two phase 3 studies with the BE HEARD EXT open-label extension study, in which patients from both trials were continued on bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks.

Of the 1014 patients initially enrolled in the two trials, 556 continued into the open-label extension. Their average age was 36.6 years, and 53.8% were women. The majority (80.6%) were White. Of the 556 patients enrolled in the extension, 446 completed the 1-year extension study.

The average draining tunnel count at baseline was 3.8, and 54.5% had Hurley stage II disease; the remaining 45.5% had stage III disease. The mean total Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score at baseline was 11.0, indicating the HS was having a very large impact on the patients’ lives.

After the 16-week initial treatment period and the maintenance treatment period out to 48 weeks, 64.0% of patients achieved HiSCR75, indicating at least a 75% reduction from baseline in the total abscess and inflammatory nodule count, rising to 77.1% at the end of the open-label extension, after a total follow-up of 96 weeks.

HiSCR100 scores, indicating a 100% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule counts, were achieved by 30.2% of 556 patients after 48 weeks and 44.2% of 446 at the 96-week follow-up.

These findings were mirrored by substantial reductions on the International HS Severity Score System, with a 70.3% reduction over baseline at 48 weeks and a 79.8% reduction at the final follow-up.

There were also “clinically meaningful” reductions in the total draining tunnel count at 1 year that were further reduced at 2 years, Zouboulis reported, at a 57.5% reduction over baseline, increasing to 73.7% by 96 weeks. The mean draining tunnel count at the end of follow-up was 1.1.

Over the full 96 weeks, the mean DLQI score reduced from 11.0 to 4.7, with 33.9% of patients achieving a score of 0 or 1 on the scale, which he said is basically patients saying: “I don’t have disease now.”

Finally, the safety data showed that there were “no differences compared to what we knew before,” Zouboulis said, with the most common treatment-related adverse events being hidradenitis, coronavirus infection, and oral candidiasis. There were few serious and severe treatment-related adverse events, and few that led to treatment discontinuation.

The study was funded by UCB.Zouboulis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, EAD, European Union, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, GSK, InflaRx, MSD, Novartis, Relaxera, UCB, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Idorsia, Incyte, L’Oréal, NAOS-BIODERMA, Pfizer, PM, Sanofi. Hsiao is on the board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation and has declared relationships with AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM — The monoclonal antibody bimekizumab (Bimzelx) achieves significant and clinically meaningful improvements in moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) that are maintained well beyond the initial 1-year clinical trial treatment period, according to new data from an open-label extension period.

“Efficacy and health-related quality-of-life outcomes were maintained through 2 years of treatment,” study presenter Christos C. Zouboulis, MD, professor of dermatology, venereology, and allergology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Dessau, Germany, said at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“No new safety signals were observed,” he added. “These data highlight the durability and consistency of bimekizumab treatment in patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa,” Zouboulis concluded.
 

Efficacy Maintained

“This is the type of long-term data that clinicians hope to see in large phase 3 trials for hidradenitis suppurativa medications,” commented Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, clinical associate professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study.

She told this news organization that, beyond maintained improvement of patient-reported quality of life, the results are “raising the bar in terms of measuring treatment success,” with over three quarters of patients achieving a high level of response on the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) scale at the final 96-week follow-up.

“Clinicians and patients have struggled with maintaining treatment efficacy over time with the first [Food and Drug Administration]–approved class of biologics for hidradenitis suppurativa — TNF [tumor necrosis factor]–alpha antagonists,” Hsiao said. She emphasized that sustained treatment efficacy will reduce the need for continued treatment switching and “hopefully improve treatment adherence.”

“It was also helpful to see that, consistent with studies of bimekizumab in psoriasis, rates of oral candidiasis appear to decrease with prolonged exposure over 2 years, though as with any open-label extension study, study dropout is a limitation,” she said.

“The availability of long-term efficacy and safety data, such as those shown in this study, will help guide shared decision-making discussions with our patients.” Overall, Hsiao believes there is “much to be excited about in the field of hidradenitis suppurativa, with a robust pipeline of potential treatments.”
 

One-Year Extension Study

HS is a “chronic and debilitating inflammatory skin disease,” Zouboulis told the audience. He noted that interleukin (IL)–17F and IL-17A are highly expressed in lesional skin and play a role in the disease immunopathogenesis.

Bimekizumab is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits both IL-17F and IL-17A. It has previously demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in patients with moderate to severe HS in the phase 3 BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II trials evaluating several dosing regimens.

Zouboulis said the current analysis combines data from the two phase 3 studies with the BE HEARD EXT open-label extension study, in which patients from both trials were continued on bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks.

Of the 1014 patients initially enrolled in the two trials, 556 continued into the open-label extension. Their average age was 36.6 years, and 53.8% were women. The majority (80.6%) were White. Of the 556 patients enrolled in the extension, 446 completed the 1-year extension study.

The average draining tunnel count at baseline was 3.8, and 54.5% had Hurley stage II disease; the remaining 45.5% had stage III disease. The mean total Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score at baseline was 11.0, indicating the HS was having a very large impact on the patients’ lives.

After the 16-week initial treatment period and the maintenance treatment period out to 48 weeks, 64.0% of patients achieved HiSCR75, indicating at least a 75% reduction from baseline in the total abscess and inflammatory nodule count, rising to 77.1% at the end of the open-label extension, after a total follow-up of 96 weeks.

HiSCR100 scores, indicating a 100% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule counts, were achieved by 30.2% of 556 patients after 48 weeks and 44.2% of 446 at the 96-week follow-up.

These findings were mirrored by substantial reductions on the International HS Severity Score System, with a 70.3% reduction over baseline at 48 weeks and a 79.8% reduction at the final follow-up.

There were also “clinically meaningful” reductions in the total draining tunnel count at 1 year that were further reduced at 2 years, Zouboulis reported, at a 57.5% reduction over baseline, increasing to 73.7% by 96 weeks. The mean draining tunnel count at the end of follow-up was 1.1.

Over the full 96 weeks, the mean DLQI score reduced from 11.0 to 4.7, with 33.9% of patients achieving a score of 0 or 1 on the scale, which he said is basically patients saying: “I don’t have disease now.”

Finally, the safety data showed that there were “no differences compared to what we knew before,” Zouboulis said, with the most common treatment-related adverse events being hidradenitis, coronavirus infection, and oral candidiasis. There were few serious and severe treatment-related adverse events, and few that led to treatment discontinuation.

The study was funded by UCB.Zouboulis declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, EAD, European Union, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, GSK, InflaRx, MSD, Novartis, Relaxera, UCB, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Idorsia, Incyte, L’Oréal, NAOS-BIODERMA, Pfizer, PM, Sanofi. Hsiao is on the board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation and has declared relationships with AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Patients with high-risk stage III resectable melanoma treated with neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy achieved higher event- and recurrence-free survival than patients who received monotherapy with immunotherapy or a targeted agent or targeted therapy plus immunotherapy, according to a large-scale pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.

Importantly, the analysis — presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology — showed that achieving a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy is a key indicator of survival outcomes.

After 3 years of follow-up, the results showed that neoadjuvant therapy is not delaying melanoma recurrence, “it’s actually preventing it,” coinvestigator Hussein A. Tawbi, MD, PhD, Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview. That’s “a big deal.”

Since 2010, the introduction of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies for high-risk stage III resectable melanoma has led to incremental gains for patients, said Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, BSc, chair of Melanoma Medical Oncology and Translational Research at the University of Sydney in Australia, who presented the results.

The first pooled analysis of neoadjuvant therapy in 189 patients, published in 2021, indicated that those who achieved a major pathological response — defined as either a pathological complete response (with no remaining vital tumor) or a near-complete pathological response (with vital tumor ≤ 10%) — had the best recurrence-free survival rates.

In the current study, the researchers expanded their cohort to include 818 patients from 18 centers. Patients received at least one dose of neoadjuvant therapy — either combination immunotherapy, combination of targeted and immunotherapy agents, or monotherapy with either an immune checkpoint inhibitor or a targeted agent.

The median age was 59 years, and 38% of patients were women. The median follow-up so far is 38.8 months.

Overall, the 3-year event-free survival was 74% in patients who received any immunotherapy, 72% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone. Similarly, 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were highest in patients who received immunotherapy at 77% vs 73% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone.

Looking specifically at progressive death 1 (PD-1)–based immunotherapy regimens, combination therapy led to a 3-year event-free survival rate between 77% and 95%, depending on the specific combinations, vs 64% with PD-1 monotherapy and 37% with combination targeted therapy.

Overall, patients who had a major pathological response were more likely to be recurrence free at 3 years. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was 88% in patients with a complete response, 68% in those with a partial pathological response, and 40% in those without a response.

Patients who received immunotherapy were more likely to have major pathological response. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was about 94% in patients who received combination or monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibition, and about 87% in those who received immunotherapy plus targeted therapy. The recurrence-free survival rate was much lower in patients given only BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

The current overall survival data, which are still immature, suggested a few differences when stratifying the patients by treatment. Almost all patients with a major pathological response were alive at 3 years, compared with 86% of those with a partial pathological response and 70% of those without a pathological response.

Overall, the results showed that immunotherapy — as either combination or monotherapy — is “quite a bit” better than targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK agents, which offers no substantial benefit, said Dr. Twabi.

“When you see the same pattern happening in study after study, in a very clear, robust way, it actually becomes very powerful,” he explained.

Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, chair of the ESMO Scientific Committee who was not involved in the study, told a press conference that the introduction of immunotherapy and combination immunotherapy has dramatically changed outcomes in melanoma.

Commenting on the current study results, Dr. Dent said that “combination immunotherapy is clearly showing exceptional stability in terms of long-term benefits.”

The question now is what are the toxicities and costs that come with combination immunotherapy, said Dr. Dent, from National Cancer Centre Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

No funding source was declared. Dr. Long declared relationships with a variety of companies, including AstraZeneca UK Limited, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Twabi declared relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, and others. Dr. Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Patients with high-risk stage III resectable melanoma treated with neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy achieved higher event- and recurrence-free survival than patients who received monotherapy with immunotherapy or a targeted agent or targeted therapy plus immunotherapy, according to a large-scale pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.

Importantly, the analysis — presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology — showed that achieving a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy is a key indicator of survival outcomes.

After 3 years of follow-up, the results showed that neoadjuvant therapy is not delaying melanoma recurrence, “it’s actually preventing it,” coinvestigator Hussein A. Tawbi, MD, PhD, Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview. That’s “a big deal.”

Since 2010, the introduction of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies for high-risk stage III resectable melanoma has led to incremental gains for patients, said Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, BSc, chair of Melanoma Medical Oncology and Translational Research at the University of Sydney in Australia, who presented the results.

The first pooled analysis of neoadjuvant therapy in 189 patients, published in 2021, indicated that those who achieved a major pathological response — defined as either a pathological complete response (with no remaining vital tumor) or a near-complete pathological response (with vital tumor ≤ 10%) — had the best recurrence-free survival rates.

In the current study, the researchers expanded their cohort to include 818 patients from 18 centers. Patients received at least one dose of neoadjuvant therapy — either combination immunotherapy, combination of targeted and immunotherapy agents, or monotherapy with either an immune checkpoint inhibitor or a targeted agent.

The median age was 59 years, and 38% of patients were women. The median follow-up so far is 38.8 months.

Overall, the 3-year event-free survival was 74% in patients who received any immunotherapy, 72% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone. Similarly, 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were highest in patients who received immunotherapy at 77% vs 73% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone.

Looking specifically at progressive death 1 (PD-1)–based immunotherapy regimens, combination therapy led to a 3-year event-free survival rate between 77% and 95%, depending on the specific combinations, vs 64% with PD-1 monotherapy and 37% with combination targeted therapy.

Overall, patients who had a major pathological response were more likely to be recurrence free at 3 years. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was 88% in patients with a complete response, 68% in those with a partial pathological response, and 40% in those without a response.

Patients who received immunotherapy were more likely to have major pathological response. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was about 94% in patients who received combination or monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibition, and about 87% in those who received immunotherapy plus targeted therapy. The recurrence-free survival rate was much lower in patients given only BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

The current overall survival data, which are still immature, suggested a few differences when stratifying the patients by treatment. Almost all patients with a major pathological response were alive at 3 years, compared with 86% of those with a partial pathological response and 70% of those without a pathological response.

Overall, the results showed that immunotherapy — as either combination or monotherapy — is “quite a bit” better than targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK agents, which offers no substantial benefit, said Dr. Twabi.

“When you see the same pattern happening in study after study, in a very clear, robust way, it actually becomes very powerful,” he explained.

Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, chair of the ESMO Scientific Committee who was not involved in the study, told a press conference that the introduction of immunotherapy and combination immunotherapy has dramatically changed outcomes in melanoma.

Commenting on the current study results, Dr. Dent said that “combination immunotherapy is clearly showing exceptional stability in terms of long-term benefits.”

The question now is what are the toxicities and costs that come with combination immunotherapy, said Dr. Dent, from National Cancer Centre Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

No funding source was declared. Dr. Long declared relationships with a variety of companies, including AstraZeneca UK Limited, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Twabi declared relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, and others. Dr. Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA, SPAIN — Patients with high-risk stage III resectable melanoma treated with neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy achieved higher event- and recurrence-free survival than patients who received monotherapy with immunotherapy or a targeted agent or targeted therapy plus immunotherapy, according to a large-scale pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium.

Importantly, the analysis — presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology — showed that achieving a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy is a key indicator of survival outcomes.

After 3 years of follow-up, the results showed that neoadjuvant therapy is not delaying melanoma recurrence, “it’s actually preventing it,” coinvestigator Hussein A. Tawbi, MD, PhD, Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview. That’s “a big deal.”

Since 2010, the introduction of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies for high-risk stage III resectable melanoma has led to incremental gains for patients, said Georgina V. Long, MD, PhD, BSc, chair of Melanoma Medical Oncology and Translational Research at the University of Sydney in Australia, who presented the results.

The first pooled analysis of neoadjuvant therapy in 189 patients, published in 2021, indicated that those who achieved a major pathological response — defined as either a pathological complete response (with no remaining vital tumor) or a near-complete pathological response (with vital tumor ≤ 10%) — had the best recurrence-free survival rates.

In the current study, the researchers expanded their cohort to include 818 patients from 18 centers. Patients received at least one dose of neoadjuvant therapy — either combination immunotherapy, combination of targeted and immunotherapy agents, or monotherapy with either an immune checkpoint inhibitor or a targeted agent.

The median age was 59 years, and 38% of patients were women. The median follow-up so far is 38.8 months.

Overall, the 3-year event-free survival was 74% in patients who received any immunotherapy, 72% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy, and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone. Similarly, 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were highest in patients who received immunotherapy at 77% vs 73% in those who received immunotherapy plus a targeted BRAF/MEK therapy and just 37% in those who received targeted therapy alone.

Looking specifically at progressive death 1 (PD-1)–based immunotherapy regimens, combination therapy led to a 3-year event-free survival rate between 77% and 95%, depending on the specific combinations, vs 64% with PD-1 monotherapy and 37% with combination targeted therapy.

Overall, patients who had a major pathological response were more likely to be recurrence free at 3 years. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was 88% in patients with a complete response, 68% in those with a partial pathological response, and 40% in those without a response.

Patients who received immunotherapy were more likely to have major pathological response. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was about 94% in patients who received combination or monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibition, and about 87% in those who received immunotherapy plus targeted therapy. The recurrence-free survival rate was much lower in patients given only BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

The current overall survival data, which are still immature, suggested a few differences when stratifying the patients by treatment. Almost all patients with a major pathological response were alive at 3 years, compared with 86% of those with a partial pathological response and 70% of those without a pathological response.

Overall, the results showed that immunotherapy — as either combination or monotherapy — is “quite a bit” better than targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK agents, which offers no substantial benefit, said Dr. Twabi.

“When you see the same pattern happening in study after study, in a very clear, robust way, it actually becomes very powerful,” he explained.

Rebecca A. Dent, MD, MSc, chair of the ESMO Scientific Committee who was not involved in the study, told a press conference that the introduction of immunotherapy and combination immunotherapy has dramatically changed outcomes in melanoma.

Commenting on the current study results, Dr. Dent said that “combination immunotherapy is clearly showing exceptional stability in terms of long-term benefits.”

The question now is what are the toxicities and costs that come with combination immunotherapy, said Dr. Dent, from National Cancer Centre Singapore and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

No funding source was declared. Dr. Long declared relationships with a variety of companies, including AstraZeneca UK Limited, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Twabi declared relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, and others. Dr. Dent declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with stage I triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have higher levels of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) demonstrate “excellent” 10-year breast cancer–specific survival without chemotherapy, according to new findings, which suggest that stromal TILs could be a useful biomarker to optimize treatment decisions in this patient population.

METHODOLOGY:

• The absolute benefit of chemotherapy remains unclear among patients with stage I TNBC. High levels of stromal TILs, a promising biomarker, have been linked to better survival in patients with TNBC, but data focused on stage I disease are lacking.
• In the current analysis, researchers identified a cohort of 1041 women (mean age at diagnosis, 64.4 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with stage I TNBC who had an available TIL score and had undergone a lumpectomy or a mastectomy but had not received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.
• Patients’ clinical data were matched to their corresponding pathologic data provided by the Dutch Pathology Registry, and a pathologist blinded to outcomes scored stromal TIL levels according to the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines.
• The primary endpoint was breast cancer–specific survival at prespecified stromal TIL cutoffs of 30%, 50%, and 75%. Secondary outcomes included specific survival by pathologic tumor stage and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 8.6% of women had a pT1a tumor, 38.7% had a pT1b tumor, and 52.6% had a pT1c tumor. In the cohort, 25.6% of patients had stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher, 19.5% had levels of 50% or higher, and 13.5% had levels of 75% or higher.
• Over a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 335 patients died, 107 (32%) of whom died from breast cancer. Patients with smaller tumors (pT1abNO) had better survival outcomes than those with larger tumors (pT1cNO) — a 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 92% vs 86%, respectively.
• In the overall cohort, stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher were associated with better breast cancer–specific survival than those with stromal TIL levels below 30% (96% vs 87%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45). Stromal TIL levels of 50% or greater were also associated with better 10-year breast cancer–specific survival than those with levels below 50% (92% vs 88%; HR, 0.59). A similar pattern was observed for stromal TIL levels and overall survival.
• In patients with pT1c tumors, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival among those with stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher was 95% vs 83% for levels below the 30% cutoff (HR, 0.24). Similarly, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival for those in the 50% or higher group was 95% vs 84% for levels below that cutoff (HR, 0.27). The 10-year breast cancer–specific survival improved to 98% among patients with stromal TIL levels of 75% or higher (HR, 0.09).

IN PRACTICE:

The results supported the establishment of “treatment-optimization clinical trials in patients with stage I TNBC, using [stromal] TIL level as an integral biomarker to prospectively confirm the observed excellent survival when neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy is not administered,” the authors wrote. Assessing stromal TILs is also “inexpensive,” the authors added.

SOURCE:

The research, conducted by Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and colleagues, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted that the study was limited by its observational nature. The patients were drawn from a larger cohort, about half of whom received adjuvant chemotherapy, and the patients who did not receive chemotherapy may have had favorable tumor characteristics. There were also no data on BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation status and recurrences and/or distant metastases. The database did not include data on patient ethnicity because most Dutch patients were White.

DISCLOSURES:

Research at the Netherlands Cancer Institute was supported by institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society and the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Dr. Kok declared financial relationships with several organizations including Gilead and Domain Therapeutics, as well as institutional grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Roche. Other authors also declared numerous financial relationships for themselves and their institutions with pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with stage I triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have higher levels of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) demonstrate “excellent” 10-year breast cancer–specific survival without chemotherapy, according to new findings, which suggest that stromal TILs could be a useful biomarker to optimize treatment decisions in this patient population.

METHODOLOGY:

• The absolute benefit of chemotherapy remains unclear among patients with stage I TNBC. High levels of stromal TILs, a promising biomarker, have been linked to better survival in patients with TNBC, but data focused on stage I disease are lacking.
• In the current analysis, researchers identified a cohort of 1041 women (mean age at diagnosis, 64.4 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with stage I TNBC who had an available TIL score and had undergone a lumpectomy or a mastectomy but had not received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.
• Patients’ clinical data were matched to their corresponding pathologic data provided by the Dutch Pathology Registry, and a pathologist blinded to outcomes scored stromal TIL levels according to the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines.
• The primary endpoint was breast cancer–specific survival at prespecified stromal TIL cutoffs of 30%, 50%, and 75%. Secondary outcomes included specific survival by pathologic tumor stage and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 8.6% of women had a pT1a tumor, 38.7% had a pT1b tumor, and 52.6% had a pT1c tumor. In the cohort, 25.6% of patients had stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher, 19.5% had levels of 50% or higher, and 13.5% had levels of 75% or higher.
• Over a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 335 patients died, 107 (32%) of whom died from breast cancer. Patients with smaller tumors (pT1abNO) had better survival outcomes than those with larger tumors (pT1cNO) — a 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 92% vs 86%, respectively.
• In the overall cohort, stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher were associated with better breast cancer–specific survival than those with stromal TIL levels below 30% (96% vs 87%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45). Stromal TIL levels of 50% or greater were also associated with better 10-year breast cancer–specific survival than those with levels below 50% (92% vs 88%; HR, 0.59). A similar pattern was observed for stromal TIL levels and overall survival.
• In patients with pT1c tumors, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival among those with stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher was 95% vs 83% for levels below the 30% cutoff (HR, 0.24). Similarly, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival for those in the 50% or higher group was 95% vs 84% for levels below that cutoff (HR, 0.27). The 10-year breast cancer–specific survival improved to 98% among patients with stromal TIL levels of 75% or higher (HR, 0.09).

IN PRACTICE:

The results supported the establishment of “treatment-optimization clinical trials in patients with stage I TNBC, using [stromal] TIL level as an integral biomarker to prospectively confirm the observed excellent survival when neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy is not administered,” the authors wrote. Assessing stromal TILs is also “inexpensive,” the authors added.

SOURCE:

The research, conducted by Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and colleagues, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted that the study was limited by its observational nature. The patients were drawn from a larger cohort, about half of whom received adjuvant chemotherapy, and the patients who did not receive chemotherapy may have had favorable tumor characteristics. There were also no data on BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation status and recurrences and/or distant metastases. The database did not include data on patient ethnicity because most Dutch patients were White.

DISCLOSURES:

Research at the Netherlands Cancer Institute was supported by institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society and the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Dr. Kok declared financial relationships with several organizations including Gilead and Domain Therapeutics, as well as institutional grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Roche. Other authors also declared numerous financial relationships for themselves and their institutions with pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with stage I triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have higher levels of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) demonstrate “excellent” 10-year breast cancer–specific survival without chemotherapy, according to new findings, which suggest that stromal TILs could be a useful biomarker to optimize treatment decisions in this patient population.

METHODOLOGY:

• The absolute benefit of chemotherapy remains unclear among patients with stage I TNBC. High levels of stromal TILs, a promising biomarker, have been linked to better survival in patients with TNBC, but data focused on stage I disease are lacking.
• In the current analysis, researchers identified a cohort of 1041 women (mean age at diagnosis, 64.4 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with stage I TNBC who had an available TIL score and had undergone a lumpectomy or a mastectomy but had not received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.
• Patients’ clinical data were matched to their corresponding pathologic data provided by the Dutch Pathology Registry, and a pathologist blinded to outcomes scored stromal TIL levels according to the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines.
• The primary endpoint was breast cancer–specific survival at prespecified stromal TIL cutoffs of 30%, 50%, and 75%. Secondary outcomes included specific survival by pathologic tumor stage and overall survival.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 8.6% of women had a pT1a tumor, 38.7% had a pT1b tumor, and 52.6% had a pT1c tumor. In the cohort, 25.6% of patients had stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher, 19.5% had levels of 50% or higher, and 13.5% had levels of 75% or higher.
• Over a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 335 patients died, 107 (32%) of whom died from breast cancer. Patients with smaller tumors (pT1abNO) had better survival outcomes than those with larger tumors (pT1cNO) — a 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 92% vs 86%, respectively.
• In the overall cohort, stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher were associated with better breast cancer–specific survival than those with stromal TIL levels below 30% (96% vs 87%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45). Stromal TIL levels of 50% or greater were also associated with better 10-year breast cancer–specific survival than those with levels below 50% (92% vs 88%; HR, 0.59). A similar pattern was observed for stromal TIL levels and overall survival.
• In patients with pT1c tumors, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival among those with stromal TIL levels of 30% or higher was 95% vs 83% for levels below the 30% cutoff (HR, 0.24). Similarly, the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival for those in the 50% or higher group was 95% vs 84% for levels below that cutoff (HR, 0.27). The 10-year breast cancer–specific survival improved to 98% among patients with stromal TIL levels of 75% or higher (HR, 0.09).

IN PRACTICE:

The results supported the establishment of “treatment-optimization clinical trials in patients with stage I TNBC, using [stromal] TIL level as an integral biomarker to prospectively confirm the observed excellent survival when neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy is not administered,” the authors wrote. Assessing stromal TILs is also “inexpensive,” the authors added.

SOURCE:

The research, conducted by Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, and colleagues, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted that the study was limited by its observational nature. The patients were drawn from a larger cohort, about half of whom received adjuvant chemotherapy, and the patients who did not receive chemotherapy may have had favorable tumor characteristics. There were also no data on BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation status and recurrences and/or distant metastases. The database did not include data on patient ethnicity because most Dutch patients were White.

DISCLOSURES:

Research at the Netherlands Cancer Institute was supported by institutional grants from the Dutch Cancer Society and the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Dr. Kok declared financial relationships with several organizations including Gilead and Domain Therapeutics, as well as institutional grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Roche. Other authors also declared numerous financial relationships for themselves and their institutions with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Should a patient with high lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a), be started on low-dose aspirin?

This is the conundrum facing many physicians and patients, but even getting to that point will require more availability and coverage of tests and a greater appreciation of the risk associated with Lp(a), said cardiologists.
 

Lp(a): The Silent Risk

On Lp(a) Awareness Day, C. Michael Gibson, MD, MA, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, and PERFUSE took the opportunity to talk about his experiences with testing on X.

The professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said he was surprised to find that he had a very high calcium score, despite a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of just 70 mg/dL. Eventually, he found out that he had a “very, very high Lp(a),” which was particularly concerning because his grandfather died of a heart attack at 45 years of age.

But how much risk does that represent?

A 2022 consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) highlighted that epidemiologic and genetic studies “strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes,” even at very low LDL cholesterol levels.

This is because Lp(a) has proinflammatory and proatherosclerotic properties, and high levels are associated with both micro- and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Findings from a US registry study also suggest the threshold related to increased cardiovascular risk may differ for primary and secondary prevention populations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024 Mar 5;83[9]:873-886).

Lp(a) is, however, genetically determined, and there are no drugs available that directly lower levels, although some are on the horizon. In the meantime, the experts behind the consensus statement recommend that all adults be tested at least once in their lifetime.
 

Testing Cost and Availability

This recommendation has been translated into guidelines in “many, many” countries, said lead author Florian Kronenberg, MD, MAE, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, but “we are far away from reaching that goal.”

“We’ve got a real problem,” added Stephen Nicholls, MD, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute and a professor of cardiology at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, as there is “not a country in the world where there’s good access to Lp(a) testing.”

Dr. Kronenberg said that the consensus statement “created a kind of momentum” toward universal testing.

Ulrich Laufs, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, agreed, saying that, overall, Lp(a) testing has “increased dramatically,” albeit from “extremely low levels.”

Dr. Kronenberg believes that “we have to be really patient.” He cited a lack of knowledge among physicians as one of the biggest barriers to greater uptake of testing.

“There is still no appreciation of the role of Lp(a),” agreed Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, director of Cardiovascular Research and of the Lipoproteins and Atherosclerosis Laboratory of IRCCS Multimedica, Milan, Italy, and past president of the EAS.

“That’s why it’s not mentioned” to patients, he said. “What is really needed is to inform physician colleagues that Lp(a) is not only a risk factor but is the cause” of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Dr. Kronenberg said that the pressure for testing can often come from the patient themselves.

Physicians then question why the patient wants to be tested when there are no medications to treat it, he added. “We really tried very hard when we did the consensus paper to say that we should perform the test and give people advice on what to do.”

Dr. Catapano believes that another major obstacle is the cost of the test, which remains high “because very few people do it,” and there is some debate over which test to use.

Taken together, these issues have meant that “payers are really struggling with the idea of funding Lp(a),” said Dr. Nicholls, adding that “there seems to be this fixation on: ‘Well, if you can’t lower Lp(a), why measure it?’ ”

Rather than blame the payers, he says there is a need to educate about the science behind testing and underline that Lp(a) is an “important risk enhancer” for cardiovascular disease.

“Because if we’re going to make people pay out of pocket, then you’re creating a massive equity issue in that only those who can afford the test have it.”
 

High Lp(a) Now What?

But once the test has been performed, there then comes the question as to what to do about the result.

“Before we get anywhere near an agent that effectively lowers Lp(a) and get it into the clinic, there are lots of things that we can do today,” said Dr. Nicholls.

If someone has an intermediate or high background cardiovascular risk and they have got a high Lp(a) level, they “should be treated more intensively, as we know that high Lp(a) patients do better if their LDL cholesterol and their blood pressure is lower.”

For Dr. Catapano, this means having the “same mindset as you do with [a patient with] high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, and so on, because it’s exactly the same thing: It’s interacting with your other risk factors to increase your overall risk.”

Dr. Gibson agreed. Through a range of measures, including weight loss and statin therapy, he was able to reduce his overall cardiovascular risk, and his LDL cholesterol level dropped to just 20 mg/dL.
 

A Role for Aspirin?

However, one debate that has been rolling on in recent months is whether to start patients with elevated Lp(a) on low-dose aspirin.

It gained added momentum when Pablo Corral, MD, a lipidologist and a professor in the School of Medicine, Pharmacology Department, FASTA University, Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina, highlighted the issue on X.

He pointed to a recent study, which showed that regular aspirin use was associated with a significantly lower rate of ASCVD mortality in adults without clinical ASCVD but who had elevated Lp(a).

Dr. Nicholls said that, when you “peel away the layers” of the current evidence, there is some suggestion that Lp(a)may be prothrombotic. “So in theory, perhaps aspirin might be maybe more intuitively useful there.”

He noted that the ASPREE primary prevention study found that low-dose aspirin in older adults resulted in a significantly higher risk for major hemorrhage over placebo and did not significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease.

But an analysis he and his colleagues did suggest that aspirin may indeed benefit older individuals if they have elevated Lp(a) genotypes.
 

An Individual Decision

For Dr. Kronenberg and Dr. Laufs, there is currently a lack of appropriate data to make a recommendation either way, particularly for primary prevention.

They warned that the risk for thrombosis in patients with mildly elevated Lp(a) cannot be discounted, and in most cases either “the existing risk of bleeding exceeds the beneficial effects [of aspirin], or it’s not indicated,” said Dr. Laufs.

“When we make a recommendation, we should have evidence-based data,” Dr. Kronenberg said, but, at the moment, people “somehow put their finger in the air and see” which way the wind is blowing.

Dr. Catapano urged patients to talk to their physician, as even low-dose aspirin is “very potent” at inhibiting platelets.

Dr. Gibson agreed, saying that he is in two minds, as the potential benefit has to be weighed against the bleeding risk.

He personally takes low-dose aspirin because “I know I have a low bleeding risk,” but it is a decision “that has to be taken individually between a patient and their physician.”

Dr. Gibson, Dr. Kronenberg, Dr. Nicholls, and Dr. Catapano all reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations.

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

Should a patient with high lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a), be started on low-dose aspirin?

This is the conundrum facing many physicians and patients, but even getting to that point will require more availability and coverage of tests and a greater appreciation of the risk associated with Lp(a), said cardiologists.
 

Lp(a): The Silent Risk

On Lp(a) Awareness Day, C. Michael Gibson, MD, MA, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, and PERFUSE took the opportunity to talk about his experiences with testing on X.

The professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said he was surprised to find that he had a very high calcium score, despite a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of just 70 mg/dL. Eventually, he found out that he had a “very, very high Lp(a),” which was particularly concerning because his grandfather died of a heart attack at 45 years of age.

But how much risk does that represent?

A 2022 consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) highlighted that epidemiologic and genetic studies “strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes,” even at very low LDL cholesterol levels.

This is because Lp(a) has proinflammatory and proatherosclerotic properties, and high levels are associated with both micro- and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Findings from a US registry study also suggest the threshold related to increased cardiovascular risk may differ for primary and secondary prevention populations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024 Mar 5;83[9]:873-886).

Lp(a) is, however, genetically determined, and there are no drugs available that directly lower levels, although some are on the horizon. In the meantime, the experts behind the consensus statement recommend that all adults be tested at least once in their lifetime.
 

Testing Cost and Availability

This recommendation has been translated into guidelines in “many, many” countries, said lead author Florian Kronenberg, MD, MAE, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, but “we are far away from reaching that goal.”

“We’ve got a real problem,” added Stephen Nicholls, MD, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute and a professor of cardiology at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, as there is “not a country in the world where there’s good access to Lp(a) testing.”

Dr. Kronenberg said that the consensus statement “created a kind of momentum” toward universal testing.

Ulrich Laufs, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, agreed, saying that, overall, Lp(a) testing has “increased dramatically,” albeit from “extremely low levels.”

Dr. Kronenberg believes that “we have to be really patient.” He cited a lack of knowledge among physicians as one of the biggest barriers to greater uptake of testing.

“There is still no appreciation of the role of Lp(a),” agreed Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, director of Cardiovascular Research and of the Lipoproteins and Atherosclerosis Laboratory of IRCCS Multimedica, Milan, Italy, and past president of the EAS.

“That’s why it’s not mentioned” to patients, he said. “What is really needed is to inform physician colleagues that Lp(a) is not only a risk factor but is the cause” of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Dr. Kronenberg said that the pressure for testing can often come from the patient themselves.

Physicians then question why the patient wants to be tested when there are no medications to treat it, he added. “We really tried very hard when we did the consensus paper to say that we should perform the test and give people advice on what to do.”

Dr. Catapano believes that another major obstacle is the cost of the test, which remains high “because very few people do it,” and there is some debate over which test to use.

Taken together, these issues have meant that “payers are really struggling with the idea of funding Lp(a),” said Dr. Nicholls, adding that “there seems to be this fixation on: ‘Well, if you can’t lower Lp(a), why measure it?’ ”

Rather than blame the payers, he says there is a need to educate about the science behind testing and underline that Lp(a) is an “important risk enhancer” for cardiovascular disease.

“Because if we’re going to make people pay out of pocket, then you’re creating a massive equity issue in that only those who can afford the test have it.”
 

High Lp(a) Now What?

But once the test has been performed, there then comes the question as to what to do about the result.

“Before we get anywhere near an agent that effectively lowers Lp(a) and get it into the clinic, there are lots of things that we can do today,” said Dr. Nicholls.

If someone has an intermediate or high background cardiovascular risk and they have got a high Lp(a) level, they “should be treated more intensively, as we know that high Lp(a) patients do better if their LDL cholesterol and their blood pressure is lower.”

For Dr. Catapano, this means having the “same mindset as you do with [a patient with] high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, and so on, because it’s exactly the same thing: It’s interacting with your other risk factors to increase your overall risk.”

Dr. Gibson agreed. Through a range of measures, including weight loss and statin therapy, he was able to reduce his overall cardiovascular risk, and his LDL cholesterol level dropped to just 20 mg/dL.
 

A Role for Aspirin?

However, one debate that has been rolling on in recent months is whether to start patients with elevated Lp(a) on low-dose aspirin.

It gained added momentum when Pablo Corral, MD, a lipidologist and a professor in the School of Medicine, Pharmacology Department, FASTA University, Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina, highlighted the issue on X.

He pointed to a recent study, which showed that regular aspirin use was associated with a significantly lower rate of ASCVD mortality in adults without clinical ASCVD but who had elevated Lp(a).

Dr. Nicholls said that, when you “peel away the layers” of the current evidence, there is some suggestion that Lp(a)may be prothrombotic. “So in theory, perhaps aspirin might be maybe more intuitively useful there.”

He noted that the ASPREE primary prevention study found that low-dose aspirin in older adults resulted in a significantly higher risk for major hemorrhage over placebo and did not significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease.

But an analysis he and his colleagues did suggest that aspirin may indeed benefit older individuals if they have elevated Lp(a) genotypes.
 

An Individual Decision

For Dr. Kronenberg and Dr. Laufs, there is currently a lack of appropriate data to make a recommendation either way, particularly for primary prevention.

They warned that the risk for thrombosis in patients with mildly elevated Lp(a) cannot be discounted, and in most cases either “the existing risk of bleeding exceeds the beneficial effects [of aspirin], or it’s not indicated,” said Dr. Laufs.

“When we make a recommendation, we should have evidence-based data,” Dr. Kronenberg said, but, at the moment, people “somehow put their finger in the air and see” which way the wind is blowing.

Dr. Catapano urged patients to talk to their physician, as even low-dose aspirin is “very potent” at inhibiting platelets.

Dr. Gibson agreed, saying that he is in two minds, as the potential benefit has to be weighed against the bleeding risk.

He personally takes low-dose aspirin because “I know I have a low bleeding risk,” but it is a decision “that has to be taken individually between a patient and their physician.”

Dr. Gibson, Dr. Kronenberg, Dr. Nicholls, and Dr. Catapano all reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations.

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

Should a patient with high lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a), be started on low-dose aspirin?

This is the conundrum facing many physicians and patients, but even getting to that point will require more availability and coverage of tests and a greater appreciation of the risk associated with Lp(a), said cardiologists.
 

Lp(a): The Silent Risk

On Lp(a) Awareness Day, C. Michael Gibson, MD, MA, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts, and PERFUSE took the opportunity to talk about his experiences with testing on X.

The professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said he was surprised to find that he had a very high calcium score, despite a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of just 70 mg/dL. Eventually, he found out that he had a “very, very high Lp(a),” which was particularly concerning because his grandfather died of a heart attack at 45 years of age.

But how much risk does that represent?

A 2022 consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) highlighted that epidemiologic and genetic studies “strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes,” even at very low LDL cholesterol levels.

This is because Lp(a) has proinflammatory and proatherosclerotic properties, and high levels are associated with both micro- and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Findings from a US registry study also suggest the threshold related to increased cardiovascular risk may differ for primary and secondary prevention populations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024 Mar 5;83[9]:873-886).

Lp(a) is, however, genetically determined, and there are no drugs available that directly lower levels, although some are on the horizon. In the meantime, the experts behind the consensus statement recommend that all adults be tested at least once in their lifetime.
 

Testing Cost and Availability

This recommendation has been translated into guidelines in “many, many” countries, said lead author Florian Kronenberg, MD, MAE, Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, but “we are far away from reaching that goal.”

“We’ve got a real problem,” added Stephen Nicholls, MD, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute and a professor of cardiology at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, as there is “not a country in the world where there’s good access to Lp(a) testing.”

Dr. Kronenberg said that the consensus statement “created a kind of momentum” toward universal testing.

Ulrich Laufs, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, agreed, saying that, overall, Lp(a) testing has “increased dramatically,” albeit from “extremely low levels.”

Dr. Kronenberg believes that “we have to be really patient.” He cited a lack of knowledge among physicians as one of the biggest barriers to greater uptake of testing.

“There is still no appreciation of the role of Lp(a),” agreed Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, director of Cardiovascular Research and of the Lipoproteins and Atherosclerosis Laboratory of IRCCS Multimedica, Milan, Italy, and past president of the EAS.

“That’s why it’s not mentioned” to patients, he said. “What is really needed is to inform physician colleagues that Lp(a) is not only a risk factor but is the cause” of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Dr. Kronenberg said that the pressure for testing can often come from the patient themselves.

Physicians then question why the patient wants to be tested when there are no medications to treat it, he added. “We really tried very hard when we did the consensus paper to say that we should perform the test and give people advice on what to do.”

Dr. Catapano believes that another major obstacle is the cost of the test, which remains high “because very few people do it,” and there is some debate over which test to use.

Taken together, these issues have meant that “payers are really struggling with the idea of funding Lp(a),” said Dr. Nicholls, adding that “there seems to be this fixation on: ‘Well, if you can’t lower Lp(a), why measure it?’ ”

Rather than blame the payers, he says there is a need to educate about the science behind testing and underline that Lp(a) is an “important risk enhancer” for cardiovascular disease.

“Because if we’re going to make people pay out of pocket, then you’re creating a massive equity issue in that only those who can afford the test have it.”
 

High Lp(a) Now What?

But once the test has been performed, there then comes the question as to what to do about the result.

“Before we get anywhere near an agent that effectively lowers Lp(a) and get it into the clinic, there are lots of things that we can do today,” said Dr. Nicholls.

If someone has an intermediate or high background cardiovascular risk and they have got a high Lp(a) level, they “should be treated more intensively, as we know that high Lp(a) patients do better if their LDL cholesterol and their blood pressure is lower.”

For Dr. Catapano, this means having the “same mindset as you do with [a patient with] high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, and so on, because it’s exactly the same thing: It’s interacting with your other risk factors to increase your overall risk.”

Dr. Gibson agreed. Through a range of measures, including weight loss and statin therapy, he was able to reduce his overall cardiovascular risk, and his LDL cholesterol level dropped to just 20 mg/dL.
 

A Role for Aspirin?

However, one debate that has been rolling on in recent months is whether to start patients with elevated Lp(a) on low-dose aspirin.

It gained added momentum when Pablo Corral, MD, a lipidologist and a professor in the School of Medicine, Pharmacology Department, FASTA University, Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina, highlighted the issue on X.

He pointed to a recent study, which showed that regular aspirin use was associated with a significantly lower rate of ASCVD mortality in adults without clinical ASCVD but who had elevated Lp(a).

Dr. Nicholls said that, when you “peel away the layers” of the current evidence, there is some suggestion that Lp(a)may be prothrombotic. “So in theory, perhaps aspirin might be maybe more intuitively useful there.”

He noted that the ASPREE primary prevention study found that low-dose aspirin in older adults resulted in a significantly higher risk for major hemorrhage over placebo and did not significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease.

But an analysis he and his colleagues did suggest that aspirin may indeed benefit older individuals if they have elevated Lp(a) genotypes.
 

An Individual Decision

For Dr. Kronenberg and Dr. Laufs, there is currently a lack of appropriate data to make a recommendation either way, particularly for primary prevention.

They warned that the risk for thrombosis in patients with mildly elevated Lp(a) cannot be discounted, and in most cases either “the existing risk of bleeding exceeds the beneficial effects [of aspirin], or it’s not indicated,” said Dr. Laufs.

“When we make a recommendation, we should have evidence-based data,” Dr. Kronenberg said, but, at the moment, people “somehow put their finger in the air and see” which way the wind is blowing.

Dr. Catapano urged patients to talk to their physician, as even low-dose aspirin is “very potent” at inhibiting platelets.

Dr. Gibson agreed, saying that he is in two minds, as the potential benefit has to be weighed against the bleeding risk.

He personally takes low-dose aspirin because “I know I have a low bleeding risk,” but it is a decision “that has to be taken individually between a patient and their physician.”

Dr. Gibson, Dr. Kronenberg, Dr. Nicholls, and Dr. Catapano all reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations.

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

LYON, FRANCE — The anti-obesity drug semaglutide is associated with significant reductions in the inflammatory marker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), even in patients who do not lose substantial amounts of weight with the drug, according to data from the SELECT clinical trial.

The research, presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2024, involved over 17,600 patients with overweight or obesity and had established cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

Those given semaglutide experienced a 38% reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with placebo regardless of baseline body mass index, statin use, cholesterol levels, and other measures.

“Weight loss was associated with greater high-sensitivity CRP reduction in both treatment groups,” said study presenter Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of Preventive Cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, but “with increased high-sensitivity CRP reductions in those receiving semaglutide.”

The drug also “significantly reduced high-sensitivity CRP early,” he said, “prior to major weight loss and in those who did not lose significant amounts of weight.” The reductions reached approximately 12% at 4 weeks and around 20% at 8 weeks, when the weight loss “was still quite modest,” at 2% and 3% of body weight, respectively. Even among patients who achieved weight loss of less than 2% body weight, semaglutide was associated with a reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels.

In the SELECT trial, semaglutide also resulted in a consistent reduction of around 20% vs placebo in major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

But Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said in an interview that body weight “is probably the major driver” of CRP levels in the population, accounting for between 20% and 30% of the variation.

Dr. Sattar, who was not involved in the study, said that because drugs like semaglutide lower weight but also have anti-inflammatory effects, the question becomes: “Could the anti-inflammatory effects be part of the mechanisms by which these drugs affect the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events?”
 

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

The current analysis, however, cannot answer the question, he said. “All it tells us is about associations.”

“What we do know is semaglutide, predominantly by lowering weight, is lowering CRP levels and equally, we know that when you lose weight, you improve blood pressure, you improve lipids, and you reduce the risk of diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Sattar also took issue with the researchers’ conclusion that the high-sensitivity CRP reductions seen in SELECT occurred prior to major weight loss because the “pattern of CRP reduction and weight reduction is almost identical.”

Dr. Sattar also pointed out in a recent editorial that the drug appears to have a direct effect on blood vessels and the heart, which may lead to improvements in systemic inflammation. Consequently, he said, any assertion that semaglutide is genuinely anti-inflammatory is, at this stage, “speculation.”

Dr. Plutzky said that “systemic, chronic inflammation is implicated as a potential mechanism and therapeutic target in atherosclerosis and major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as obesity,” and high-sensitivity CRP levels are an “established biomarker of inflammation and have been shown to predict cardiovascular risk.”

However, the relationship between high-sensitivity CRP, responses to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists like semaglutide, and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity “remains incompletely understood,” said Dr. Plutzky.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — The anti-obesity drug semaglutide is associated with significant reductions in the inflammatory marker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), even in patients who do not lose substantial amounts of weight with the drug, according to data from the SELECT clinical trial.

The research, presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2024, involved over 17,600 patients with overweight or obesity and had established cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

Those given semaglutide experienced a 38% reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with placebo regardless of baseline body mass index, statin use, cholesterol levels, and other measures.

“Weight loss was associated with greater high-sensitivity CRP reduction in both treatment groups,” said study presenter Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of Preventive Cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, but “with increased high-sensitivity CRP reductions in those receiving semaglutide.”

The drug also “significantly reduced high-sensitivity CRP early,” he said, “prior to major weight loss and in those who did not lose significant amounts of weight.” The reductions reached approximately 12% at 4 weeks and around 20% at 8 weeks, when the weight loss “was still quite modest,” at 2% and 3% of body weight, respectively. Even among patients who achieved weight loss of less than 2% body weight, semaglutide was associated with a reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels.

In the SELECT trial, semaglutide also resulted in a consistent reduction of around 20% vs placebo in major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

But Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said in an interview that body weight “is probably the major driver” of CRP levels in the population, accounting for between 20% and 30% of the variation.

Dr. Sattar, who was not involved in the study, said that because drugs like semaglutide lower weight but also have anti-inflammatory effects, the question becomes: “Could the anti-inflammatory effects be part of the mechanisms by which these drugs affect the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events?”
 

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

The current analysis, however, cannot answer the question, he said. “All it tells us is about associations.”

“What we do know is semaglutide, predominantly by lowering weight, is lowering CRP levels and equally, we know that when you lose weight, you improve blood pressure, you improve lipids, and you reduce the risk of diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Sattar also took issue with the researchers’ conclusion that the high-sensitivity CRP reductions seen in SELECT occurred prior to major weight loss because the “pattern of CRP reduction and weight reduction is almost identical.”

Dr. Sattar also pointed out in a recent editorial that the drug appears to have a direct effect on blood vessels and the heart, which may lead to improvements in systemic inflammation. Consequently, he said, any assertion that semaglutide is genuinely anti-inflammatory is, at this stage, “speculation.”

Dr. Plutzky said that “systemic, chronic inflammation is implicated as a potential mechanism and therapeutic target in atherosclerosis and major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as obesity,” and high-sensitivity CRP levels are an “established biomarker of inflammation and have been shown to predict cardiovascular risk.”

However, the relationship between high-sensitivity CRP, responses to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists like semaglutide, and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity “remains incompletely understood,” said Dr. Plutzky.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — The anti-obesity drug semaglutide is associated with significant reductions in the inflammatory marker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), even in patients who do not lose substantial amounts of weight with the drug, according to data from the SELECT clinical trial.

The research, presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2024, involved over 17,600 patients with overweight or obesity and had established cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

Those given semaglutide experienced a 38% reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with placebo regardless of baseline body mass index, statin use, cholesterol levels, and other measures.

“Weight loss was associated with greater high-sensitivity CRP reduction in both treatment groups,” said study presenter Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of Preventive Cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, but “with increased high-sensitivity CRP reductions in those receiving semaglutide.”

The drug also “significantly reduced high-sensitivity CRP early,” he said, “prior to major weight loss and in those who did not lose significant amounts of weight.” The reductions reached approximately 12% at 4 weeks and around 20% at 8 weeks, when the weight loss “was still quite modest,” at 2% and 3% of body weight, respectively. Even among patients who achieved weight loss of less than 2% body weight, semaglutide was associated with a reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels.

In the SELECT trial, semaglutide also resulted in a consistent reduction of around 20% vs placebo in major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

But Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said in an interview that body weight “is probably the major driver” of CRP levels in the population, accounting for between 20% and 30% of the variation.

Dr. Sattar, who was not involved in the study, said that because drugs like semaglutide lower weight but also have anti-inflammatory effects, the question becomes: “Could the anti-inflammatory effects be part of the mechanisms by which these drugs affect the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events?”
 

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

The current analysis, however, cannot answer the question, he said. “All it tells us is about associations.”

“What we do know is semaglutide, predominantly by lowering weight, is lowering CRP levels and equally, we know that when you lose weight, you improve blood pressure, you improve lipids, and you reduce the risk of diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Sattar also took issue with the researchers’ conclusion that the high-sensitivity CRP reductions seen in SELECT occurred prior to major weight loss because the “pattern of CRP reduction and weight reduction is almost identical.”

Dr. Sattar also pointed out in a recent editorial that the drug appears to have a direct effect on blood vessels and the heart, which may lead to improvements in systemic inflammation. Consequently, he said, any assertion that semaglutide is genuinely anti-inflammatory is, at this stage, “speculation.”

Dr. Plutzky said that “systemic, chronic inflammation is implicated as a potential mechanism and therapeutic target in atherosclerosis and major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as obesity,” and high-sensitivity CRP levels are an “established biomarker of inflammation and have been shown to predict cardiovascular risk.”

However, the relationship between high-sensitivity CRP, responses to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists like semaglutide, and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity “remains incompletely understood,” said Dr. Plutzky.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, France – Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, helps high-risk patients already receiving maximally tolerated statins to achieve guideline lipid targets, reported investigators.

In the randomized, placebo-controlled LIBerate-CVD trial of more than 900 patients, lerodalcibep led to reductions from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of more than 60%.

“We believe that lerodalcibep offers a novel, effective alternative to current PCSK9 inhibitors for patients with cardiovascular disease or at very high risk for cardiovascular disease,” said Evan Stein, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer and cofounder of LIB Therapeutics in Chicago, who presented the findings at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024.

Moreover, it leads to “substantial additional LDL cholesterol reductions on top of existing oral agents” and allows more than 90% of patients to achieve the latest European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline targets, he said.

Lerodalcibep has “tolerability and safety similar to placebo,” Dr. Stein said, and requires only “a small monthly injection, which takes about 12 seconds.”

“The drug doesn’t require refrigeration” and is “stable, so far, over 9 months,” he reported.

The latest data “confirm the efficacy of lerodalcibep,” said Giuseppe Danilo Norata, PhD, from the Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences at the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, who was not involved in the study.

The LDL cholesterol reduction in this phase 3 trial is “in line with what was observed in LIBerate-FH,” and the high proportion of patients achieving their LDL cholesterol target is “impressive,” he added.
 

Effective and Well Tolerated

The safety results are “suggestive of a drug that is well tolerated, with injection-site reactions being the only remarkable adverse event increased in the treatment group,” Dr. Norata reported.

Only a “limited number” of patients developed neutralizing antidrug antibodies, which did not affect the efficacy of lerodalcibep. However, “given that the therapy is expected to be administered for years,” a longer analysis is needed to exclude the concern that a small percentage of neutralizing antidrug antibodies could reduce the efficacy, he said.

If approved, lerodalcibep could end up as a first-line option in the treatment pathway for high-risk cardiovascular disease because the efficacy “is similar to that of other injectable PCSK9 inhibitors,” he said, adding that its position in the market will “largely depend on the price.”

As the mechanism of action is similar to that of other monoclonal antibodies, “there is no pharmacological rationale to use it after another PSCK9 inhibitor,” he explained.

Lerodalcibep is a small recombinant fusion protein that combines a PCSK9-binding domain with human serum albumin.

The binding domain blocks the interaction between PCSK9 and the LDL cholesterol receptor, and the albumin linkage increases the half-life to 12-15 days, allowing low-volume injections to be given every 4 weeks.

A prior phase 2 study suggested that lerodalcibep substantially decreases LDL cholesterol levels in patients already taking maximally tolerated statins. The 300-mg dose was associated with an average reduction from baseline in LDL cholesterol levels of 77% over 12 weeks, whereas free PCSK9 levels decreased by 88%.

The current phase 3 study enrolled individuals at 65 centers in 100 countries who had or were at a very high risk for cardiovascular disease and who had an LDL cholesterol level of ≥ 1.8 mmol/L despite being on maximally tolerated statins.

Study participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive monthly subcutaneous lerodalcibep (n = 614) or placebo (n = 308) for 52 weeks and were assessed for the co-primary endpoints of the percentage change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to week 52 and the mean of levels at weeks 50 and 52.

The mean age was similar in the lerodalcibep and placebo groups (63.3 vs 64.5 years), as were the proportion of female (30% vs 30%) and White (80% vs 79%) participants.

The vast majority of participants in the lerodalcibep and placebo groups had a documented cardiovascular event (85.3% vs 86.4%) and were receiving secondary prevention, and 87% and 82%, respectively, were receiving a statin (any dose).

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean placebo-adjusted reduction in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline with lerodalcibep was 62% at week 52 (P < .0001), and the mean of levels at weeks 50 and 52 was 69.4% (P < .0001).

Similar results were seen in a per protocol analysis and an intention-to-treat analysis with imputation, which is a US Food and Drug Administration measure introduced in 2021 that assumes patients who discontinue the study treatment have an outcome similar to that in the placebo patients.

Moreover, 98.2% of patients in the lerodalcibep group achieved the ESC and European Atherosclerosis Society recommended reduction in LDL cholesterol levels of ≥ 50%, whereas only 8.8% in the placebo group did.
 

Hitting the LDL Cholesterol Target

More patients in the lerodalcibep group than in the placebo group achieved the LDL cholesterol target of < 1.4 mmol/L (95.3% vs 18.5%), and more patients in the lerodalcibep group achieved both that target and the ≥ 50% target (94.5% and 6.8%).

Lerodalcibep was also associated with significant reductions from baseline in levels of non–high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, very LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol levels (P < .0001 for all).

In terms of safety, lerodalcibep was associated with an adverse event rate leading to withdrawal similar to that seen with placebo (4.2% vs 3.6%), and 15.9% and 14.8% of patients, respectively, experienced at least one serious adverse event.

In-stent restenosis occurred more often in the lerodalcibep group than in the placebo group (5.4% vs 2.0%).

The study drug was associated with low levels of transient and sporadic antidrug antibodies and a low rate of neutralizing antidrug antibodies (0.9%), which were not associated with restenosis, a reduction in free PCSK9 levels, or the ability of lerodalcibep to lower LDL cholesterol levels.

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

LYON, France – Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, helps high-risk patients already receiving maximally tolerated statins to achieve guideline lipid targets, reported investigators.

In the randomized, placebo-controlled LIBerate-CVD trial of more than 900 patients, lerodalcibep led to reductions from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of more than 60%.

“We believe that lerodalcibep offers a novel, effective alternative to current PCSK9 inhibitors for patients with cardiovascular disease or at very high risk for cardiovascular disease,” said Evan Stein, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer and cofounder of LIB Therapeutics in Chicago, who presented the findings at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024.

Moreover, it leads to “substantial additional LDL cholesterol reductions on top of existing oral agents” and allows more than 90% of patients to achieve the latest European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline targets, he said.

Lerodalcibep has “tolerability and safety similar to placebo,” Dr. Stein said, and requires only “a small monthly injection, which takes about 12 seconds.”

“The drug doesn’t require refrigeration” and is “stable, so far, over 9 months,” he reported.

The latest data “confirm the efficacy of lerodalcibep,” said Giuseppe Danilo Norata, PhD, from the Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences at the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, who was not involved in the study.

The LDL cholesterol reduction in this phase 3 trial is “in line with what was observed in LIBerate-FH,” and the high proportion of patients achieving their LDL cholesterol target is “impressive,” he added.
 

Effective and Well Tolerated

The safety results are “suggestive of a drug that is well tolerated, with injection-site reactions being the only remarkable adverse event increased in the treatment group,” Dr. Norata reported.

Only a “limited number” of patients developed neutralizing antidrug antibodies, which did not affect the efficacy of lerodalcibep. However, “given that the therapy is expected to be administered for years,” a longer analysis is needed to exclude the concern that a small percentage of neutralizing antidrug antibodies could reduce the efficacy, he said.

If approved, lerodalcibep could end up as a first-line option in the treatment pathway for high-risk cardiovascular disease because the efficacy “is similar to that of other injectable PCSK9 inhibitors,” he said, adding that its position in the market will “largely depend on the price.”

As the mechanism of action is similar to that of other monoclonal antibodies, “there is no pharmacological rationale to use it after another PSCK9 inhibitor,” he explained.

Lerodalcibep is a small recombinant fusion protein that combines a PCSK9-binding domain with human serum albumin.

The binding domain blocks the interaction between PCSK9 and the LDL cholesterol receptor, and the albumin linkage increases the half-life to 12-15 days, allowing low-volume injections to be given every 4 weeks.

A prior phase 2 study suggested that lerodalcibep substantially decreases LDL cholesterol levels in patients already taking maximally tolerated statins. The 300-mg dose was associated with an average reduction from baseline in LDL cholesterol levels of 77% over 12 weeks, whereas free PCSK9 levels decreased by 88%.

The current phase 3 study enrolled individuals at 65 centers in 100 countries who had or were at a very high risk for cardiovascular disease and who had an LDL cholesterol level of ≥ 1.8 mmol/L despite being on maximally tolerated statins.

Study participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive monthly subcutaneous lerodalcibep (n = 614) or placebo (n = 308) for 52 weeks and were assessed for the co-primary endpoints of the percentage change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to week 52 and the mean of levels at weeks 50 and 52.

The mean age was similar in the lerodalcibep and placebo groups (63.3 vs 64.5 years), as were the proportion of female (30% vs 30%) and White (80% vs 79%) participants.

The vast majority of participants in the lerodalcibep and placebo groups had a documented cardiovascular event (85.3% vs 86.4%) and were receiving secondary prevention, and 87% and 82%, respectively, were receiving a statin (any dose).

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean placebo-adjusted reduction in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline with lerodalcibep was 62% at week 52 (P < .0001), and the mean of levels at weeks 50 and 52 was 69.4% (P < .0001).

Similar results were seen in a per protocol analysis and an intention-to-treat analysis with imputation, which is a US Food and Drug Administration measure introduced in 2021 that assumes patients who discontinue the study treatment have an outcome similar to that in the placebo patients.

Moreover, 98.2% of patients in the lerodalcibep group achieved the ESC and European Atherosclerosis Society recommended reduction in LDL cholesterol levels of ≥ 50%, whereas only 8.8% in the placebo group did.
 

Hitting the LDL Cholesterol Target

More patients in the lerodalcibep group than in the placebo group achieved the LDL cholesterol target of < 1.4 mmol/L (95.3% vs 18.5%), and more patients in the lerodalcibep group achieved both that target and the ≥ 50% target (94.5% and 6.8%).

Lerodalcibep was also associated with significant reductions from baseline in levels of non–high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, very LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol levels (P < .0001 for all).

In terms of safety, lerodalcibep was associated with an adverse event rate leading to withdrawal similar to that seen with placebo (4.2% vs 3.6%), and 15.9% and 14.8% of patients, respectively, experienced at least one serious adverse event.

In-stent restenosis occurred more often in the lerodalcibep group than in the placebo group (5.4% vs 2.0%).

The study drug was associated with low levels of transient and sporadic antidrug antibodies and a low rate of neutralizing antidrug antibodies (0.9%), which were not associated with restenosis, a reduction in free PCSK9 levels, or the ability of lerodalcibep to lower LDL cholesterol levels.

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

LYON, France – Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, helps high-risk patients already receiving maximally tolerated statins to achieve guideline lipid targets, reported investigators.

In the randomized, placebo-controlled LIBerate-CVD trial of more than 900 patients, lerodalcibep led to reductions from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of more than 60%.

“We believe that lerodalcibep offers a novel, effective alternative to current PCSK9 inhibitors for patients with cardiovascular disease or at very high risk for cardiovascular disease,” said Evan Stein, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer and cofounder of LIB Therapeutics in Chicago, who presented the findings at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024.

Moreover, it leads to “substantial additional LDL cholesterol reductions on top of existing oral agents” and allows more than 90% of patients to achieve the latest European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline targets, he said.

Lerodalcibep has “tolerability and safety similar to placebo,” Dr. Stein said, and requires only “a small monthly injection, which takes about 12 seconds.”

“The drug doesn’t require refrigeration” and is “stable, so far, over 9 months,” he reported.

The latest data “confirm the efficacy of lerodalcibep,” said Giuseppe Danilo Norata, PhD, from the Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences at the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, who was not involved in the study.

The LDL cholesterol reduction in this phase 3 trial is “in line with what was observed in LIBerate-FH,” and the high proportion of patients achieving their LDL cholesterol target is “impressive,” he added.
 

Effective and Well Tolerated

The safety results are “suggestive of a drug that is well tolerated, with injection-site reactions being the only remarkable adverse event increased in the treatment group,” Dr. Norata reported.

Only a “limited number” of patients developed neutralizing antidrug antibodies, which did not affect the efficacy of lerodalcibep. However, “given that the therapy is expected to be administered for years,” a longer analysis is needed to exclude the concern that a small percentage of neutralizing antidrug antibodies could reduce the efficacy, he said.

If approved, lerodalcibep could end up as a first-line option in the treatment pathway for high-risk cardiovascular disease because the efficacy “is similar to that of other injectable PCSK9 inhibitors,” he said, adding that its position in the market will “largely depend on the price.”

As the mechanism of action is similar to that of other monoclonal antibodies, “there is no pharmacological rationale to use it after another PSCK9 inhibitor,” he explained.

Lerodalcibep is a small recombinant fusion protein that combines a PCSK9-binding domain with human serum albumin.

The binding domain blocks the interaction between PCSK9 and the LDL cholesterol receptor, and the albumin linkage increases the half-life to 12-15 days, allowing low-volume injections to be given every 4 weeks.

A prior phase 2 study suggested that lerodalcibep substantially decreases LDL cholesterol levels in patients already taking maximally tolerated statins. The 300-mg dose was associated with an average reduction from baseline in LDL cholesterol levels of 77% over 12 weeks, whereas free PCSK9 levels decreased by 88%.

The current phase 3 study enrolled individuals at 65 centers in 100 countries who had or were at a very high risk for cardiovascular disease and who had an LDL cholesterol level of ≥ 1.8 mmol/L despite being on maximally tolerated statins.

Study participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive monthly subcutaneous lerodalcibep (n = 614) or placebo (n = 308) for 52 weeks and were assessed for the co-primary endpoints of the percentage change in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline to week 52 and the mean of levels at weeks 50 and 52.

The mean age was similar in the lerodalcibep and placebo groups (63.3 vs 64.5 years), as were the proportion of female (30% vs 30%) and White (80% vs 79%) participants.

The vast majority of participants in the lerodalcibep and placebo groups had a documented cardiovascular event (85.3% vs 86.4%) and were receiving secondary prevention, and 87% and 82%, respectively, were receiving a statin (any dose).

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean placebo-adjusted reduction in LDL cholesterol levels from baseline with lerodalcibep was 62% at week 52 (P < .0001), and the mean of levels at weeks 50 and 52 was 69.4% (P < .0001).

Similar results were seen in a per protocol analysis and an intention-to-treat analysis with imputation, which is a US Food and Drug Administration measure introduced in 2021 that assumes patients who discontinue the study treatment have an outcome similar to that in the placebo patients.

Moreover, 98.2% of patients in the lerodalcibep group achieved the ESC and European Atherosclerosis Society recommended reduction in LDL cholesterol levels of ≥ 50%, whereas only 8.8% in the placebo group did.
 

Hitting the LDL Cholesterol Target

More patients in the lerodalcibep group than in the placebo group achieved the LDL cholesterol target of < 1.4 mmol/L (95.3% vs 18.5%), and more patients in the lerodalcibep group achieved both that target and the ≥ 50% target (94.5% and 6.8%).

Lerodalcibep was also associated with significant reductions from baseline in levels of non–high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, very LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, as well as an increase in HDL cholesterol levels (P < .0001 for all).

In terms of safety, lerodalcibep was associated with an adverse event rate leading to withdrawal similar to that seen with placebo (4.2% vs 3.6%), and 15.9% and 14.8% of patients, respectively, experienced at least one serious adverse event.

In-stent restenosis occurred more often in the lerodalcibep group than in the placebo group (5.4% vs 2.0%).

The study drug was associated with low levels of transient and sporadic antidrug antibodies and a low rate of neutralizing antidrug antibodies (0.9%), which were not associated with restenosis, a reduction in free PCSK9 levels, or the ability of lerodalcibep to lower LDL cholesterol levels.

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

A central aim of prostate cancer treatment is to prolong survival, but trials often overlook another key goal: Improving — or at least maintaining — quality of life (QoL).

The recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting dedicated a session to QoL outcomes in men with prostate cancer.

The trials explored the effects of treatment suspension or intensification on health-related QoL as well as interventions to manage side effects in different patient populations.

The first presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 EMBARK trial, which looked at the effect of suspending treatment on health-related QoL in men with nonmetastatic disease at a high risk for biochemical recurrence.

Earlier findings from the trial, presented at ESMO in 2023, showed enzalutamide alone or in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was associated with a significant improvement in metastasis-free survival vs placebo plus leuprolide.

The initial trial randomized 1068 patients at a high risk for biochemical recurrence to these three treatment groups and suspended therapy at week 37 if prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels fell below 0.2 ng/mL. Patients, however, were not randomized into the treatment suspension groups. Treatment resumed if PSA levels rose to ≥ 2.0 ng/mL in patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy or ≥ 5.0 ng/mL in those who had not had surgery.

The post hoc analysis, which assessed patient-reported QoL outcomes following treatment suspension at baseline and every 12 weeks until progression, found no meaningful changes in the worst pain in the past 24 hours, as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form.

Patients also reported no meaningful changes in total and physical well-being scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P) and on the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions (EuroQol-5D) visual analog scale score, as well as no meaningful changes in sexual activity and urinary and bowel symptoms, based on scores from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Prostate 25 (QLQ-PR25).

Hormone treatment-related symptoms on the QLQ-PR25, however, “quickly improved but eventually began to worsen after week 97,” explained lead author Stephen J. Freedland, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, who presented the new findings at ASCO.

Dr. Freedland concluded that the EMBARK results show that enzalutamide, with or without ADT, improves metastasis-free survival vs leuprolide alone, without affecting global health-related QoL during treatment or after treatment suspension.

However, Channing J. Paller, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the research, pointed out that “patient selection is key” when choosing therapies, given that ADT has distinct adverse effects. Comorbidities and adverse effects “must be taken into consideration to help the doctor and patient make more personalized treatment choices.”
 

Treatment Intensification and QoL

Another presentation explored health-related QoL outcomes from the phase 3 PRESTO trial.

The study examined ADT intensification in 504 patients who had high-risk biochemically relapsed nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and a PSA doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomized to ADT monotherapy with degarelix or leuprolide, ADT plus apalutamide, or ADT plus apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and prednisone.

In previous data from PRESTO, the combination therapy groups both had significantly longer median PSA progression-free survival than the ADT monotherapy arm.

The latest data looked at the health-related QoL outcomes in the PRESTO population, measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, the PROMIS Fatigue tool, the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale, and the EuroQol-5D.

Ronald C. Chen, MD, MPH, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, who presented the new findings at ASCO, reported that ADT plus apalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival over ADT alone and did not meaningfully increase common treatment-related symptoms, such as hormonal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, hot flash interference, and fatigue.

However, treatment intensification with triple androgen regimen did not lead to further improvements in PSA progression-free survival but did increase the rate of serious adverse events, the time to testosterone recover, and increased hot flash interference.

PRESTO as well as EMBARK “provide a strong rationale for intensification of androgen blockade in men with high-risk biochemical recurrence after completing primary local therapy” and could even “reduce the need for subsequent treatment,” concluded Dr. Chen.
 

CBT for Managing ADT Side Effects

Up to 80% of men receiving ADT to treat prostate cancer experience night sweats and hot flashes, which are associated with sleep disturbance, anxiety, low mood, and cognitive impairments.

A third trial presented during the session looked at the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on these side effects of ADT treatment.

Initial findings from the MANCAN study found that CBT delivered by a psychologist reduced the impact of hot flashes and night sweats at 6 weeks.

The MANCAN2 study assessed QoL at 6 months among 162 patients with localized or advanced prostate cancer who underwent at least 6 months of continuous ADT and who experienced more severe hot flashes and night sweats, defined as a score of ≥ 2 on the hot flashes and night sweats problem rating scale.

Study participants were randomized to CBT plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual alone, with the intervention consisting of two CBT group sessions 4 weeks apart. Between CBT sessions, patients could refer to a booklet and CD, alongside exercises and CBT strategies.

MANCAN2 confirmed that CBT was associated with a significantly greater reduction in hot flash and night sweat scores over standard care alone at 6 weeks. Patients receiving CBT also reported better QoL, sleep, and functional status but those differences did not reach statistical significance.

By 6 months, those in the CBT group still reported better outcomes in each category, but no differences were statistically significant at this time point. Overall, however, 14% of treatment as usual alone patients discontinued ADT at 6 months vs none in the CBT arm.

“Further research is therefore needed to determine whether or not you can make this effect more durable” and to look at “the potential for CBT to support treatment compliance,” said study presenter Simon J. Crabb, PhD, MBBS, from the University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, England.
 

QoL With Radioligand Crossover

Finally, the phase 3 PSMAfore study compared ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 with abiraterone or enzalutamide in 468 taxane-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had progressed on a previous androgen receptor pathway inhibitor.

In earlier analyses, Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD, Institut Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France, reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 improved radiographic progression-free survival by 59% over androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy but did not lead to significant differences in overall survival.

In a new interim analysis, Dr. Fizazi and colleagues explored outcomes in patients eligible to cross over to ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 following androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy. Assessments of health-related QoL revealed that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to about a 40% improvement in scores on two QoL tools — 41% with FACT-P and 39% with EuroQol-5D.

On subscales of FACT-P, Dr. Fizazi reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 was also associated with a significantly longer time to worsening in physical, functional, and emotional well-being over standard therapy. A pain inventory score indicated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to a 31% improvement in the time to worsening pain intensity, as well as a 33% increase in the time to worsening pain interference.

With the treatment having a “favorable safety profile,” Dr. Fizazi said the results suggest ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 is a “treatment option” for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have undergone androgen receptor pathway inhibitor treatment.

MANCAN2 was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research. EMBARK was funded by Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, the codevelopers of enzalutamide. PRESTO was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials and Johnson & Johnson. PSMAfore was funded by Novartis. Dr. Freedland declared relationships with Pfizer and Astellas Pharma, among others. Paller declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Dendreon, Exelixis, Janssen Oncology, Omnitura, Lilly, and Bayer. Dr. Chen declared relationships with Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Crabb declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck, Amgen, Amphista Therapeutics, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, and Roche. Dr. Fizazi reported relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, and a dozen other companies.

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

A central aim of prostate cancer treatment is to prolong survival, but trials often overlook another key goal: Improving — or at least maintaining — quality of life (QoL).

The recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting dedicated a session to QoL outcomes in men with prostate cancer.

The trials explored the effects of treatment suspension or intensification on health-related QoL as well as interventions to manage side effects in different patient populations.

The first presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 EMBARK trial, which looked at the effect of suspending treatment on health-related QoL in men with nonmetastatic disease at a high risk for biochemical recurrence.

Earlier findings from the trial, presented at ESMO in 2023, showed enzalutamide alone or in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was associated with a significant improvement in metastasis-free survival vs placebo plus leuprolide.

The initial trial randomized 1068 patients at a high risk for biochemical recurrence to these three treatment groups and suspended therapy at week 37 if prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels fell below 0.2 ng/mL. Patients, however, were not randomized into the treatment suspension groups. Treatment resumed if PSA levels rose to ≥ 2.0 ng/mL in patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy or ≥ 5.0 ng/mL in those who had not had surgery.

The post hoc analysis, which assessed patient-reported QoL outcomes following treatment suspension at baseline and every 12 weeks until progression, found no meaningful changes in the worst pain in the past 24 hours, as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form.

Patients also reported no meaningful changes in total and physical well-being scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P) and on the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions (EuroQol-5D) visual analog scale score, as well as no meaningful changes in sexual activity and urinary and bowel symptoms, based on scores from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Prostate 25 (QLQ-PR25).

Hormone treatment-related symptoms on the QLQ-PR25, however, “quickly improved but eventually began to worsen after week 97,” explained lead author Stephen J. Freedland, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, who presented the new findings at ASCO.

Dr. Freedland concluded that the EMBARK results show that enzalutamide, with or without ADT, improves metastasis-free survival vs leuprolide alone, without affecting global health-related QoL during treatment or after treatment suspension.

However, Channing J. Paller, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the research, pointed out that “patient selection is key” when choosing therapies, given that ADT has distinct adverse effects. Comorbidities and adverse effects “must be taken into consideration to help the doctor and patient make more personalized treatment choices.”
 

Treatment Intensification and QoL

Another presentation explored health-related QoL outcomes from the phase 3 PRESTO trial.

The study examined ADT intensification in 504 patients who had high-risk biochemically relapsed nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and a PSA doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomized to ADT monotherapy with degarelix or leuprolide, ADT plus apalutamide, or ADT plus apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and prednisone.

In previous data from PRESTO, the combination therapy groups both had significantly longer median PSA progression-free survival than the ADT monotherapy arm.

The latest data looked at the health-related QoL outcomes in the PRESTO population, measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, the PROMIS Fatigue tool, the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale, and the EuroQol-5D.

Ronald C. Chen, MD, MPH, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, who presented the new findings at ASCO, reported that ADT plus apalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival over ADT alone and did not meaningfully increase common treatment-related symptoms, such as hormonal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, hot flash interference, and fatigue.

However, treatment intensification with triple androgen regimen did not lead to further improvements in PSA progression-free survival but did increase the rate of serious adverse events, the time to testosterone recover, and increased hot flash interference.

PRESTO as well as EMBARK “provide a strong rationale for intensification of androgen blockade in men with high-risk biochemical recurrence after completing primary local therapy” and could even “reduce the need for subsequent treatment,” concluded Dr. Chen.
 

CBT for Managing ADT Side Effects

Up to 80% of men receiving ADT to treat prostate cancer experience night sweats and hot flashes, which are associated with sleep disturbance, anxiety, low mood, and cognitive impairments.

A third trial presented during the session looked at the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on these side effects of ADT treatment.

Initial findings from the MANCAN study found that CBT delivered by a psychologist reduced the impact of hot flashes and night sweats at 6 weeks.

The MANCAN2 study assessed QoL at 6 months among 162 patients with localized or advanced prostate cancer who underwent at least 6 months of continuous ADT and who experienced more severe hot flashes and night sweats, defined as a score of ≥ 2 on the hot flashes and night sweats problem rating scale.

Study participants were randomized to CBT plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual alone, with the intervention consisting of two CBT group sessions 4 weeks apart. Between CBT sessions, patients could refer to a booklet and CD, alongside exercises and CBT strategies.

MANCAN2 confirmed that CBT was associated with a significantly greater reduction in hot flash and night sweat scores over standard care alone at 6 weeks. Patients receiving CBT also reported better QoL, sleep, and functional status but those differences did not reach statistical significance.

By 6 months, those in the CBT group still reported better outcomes in each category, but no differences were statistically significant at this time point. Overall, however, 14% of treatment as usual alone patients discontinued ADT at 6 months vs none in the CBT arm.

“Further research is therefore needed to determine whether or not you can make this effect more durable” and to look at “the potential for CBT to support treatment compliance,” said study presenter Simon J. Crabb, PhD, MBBS, from the University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, England.
 

QoL With Radioligand Crossover

Finally, the phase 3 PSMAfore study compared ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 with abiraterone or enzalutamide in 468 taxane-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had progressed on a previous androgen receptor pathway inhibitor.

In earlier analyses, Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD, Institut Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France, reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 improved radiographic progression-free survival by 59% over androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy but did not lead to significant differences in overall survival.

In a new interim analysis, Dr. Fizazi and colleagues explored outcomes in patients eligible to cross over to ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 following androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy. Assessments of health-related QoL revealed that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to about a 40% improvement in scores on two QoL tools — 41% with FACT-P and 39% with EuroQol-5D.

On subscales of FACT-P, Dr. Fizazi reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 was also associated with a significantly longer time to worsening in physical, functional, and emotional well-being over standard therapy. A pain inventory score indicated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to a 31% improvement in the time to worsening pain intensity, as well as a 33% increase in the time to worsening pain interference.

With the treatment having a “favorable safety profile,” Dr. Fizazi said the results suggest ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 is a “treatment option” for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have undergone androgen receptor pathway inhibitor treatment.

MANCAN2 was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research. EMBARK was funded by Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, the codevelopers of enzalutamide. PRESTO was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials and Johnson & Johnson. PSMAfore was funded by Novartis. Dr. Freedland declared relationships with Pfizer and Astellas Pharma, among others. Paller declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Dendreon, Exelixis, Janssen Oncology, Omnitura, Lilly, and Bayer. Dr. Chen declared relationships with Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Crabb declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck, Amgen, Amphista Therapeutics, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, and Roche. Dr. Fizazi reported relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, and a dozen other companies.

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

A central aim of prostate cancer treatment is to prolong survival, but trials often overlook another key goal: Improving — or at least maintaining — quality of life (QoL).

The recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting dedicated a session to QoL outcomes in men with prostate cancer.

The trials explored the effects of treatment suspension or intensification on health-related QoL as well as interventions to manage side effects in different patient populations.

The first presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 EMBARK trial, which looked at the effect of suspending treatment on health-related QoL in men with nonmetastatic disease at a high risk for biochemical recurrence.

Earlier findings from the trial, presented at ESMO in 2023, showed enzalutamide alone or in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was associated with a significant improvement in metastasis-free survival vs placebo plus leuprolide.

The initial trial randomized 1068 patients at a high risk for biochemical recurrence to these three treatment groups and suspended therapy at week 37 if prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels fell below 0.2 ng/mL. Patients, however, were not randomized into the treatment suspension groups. Treatment resumed if PSA levels rose to ≥ 2.0 ng/mL in patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy or ≥ 5.0 ng/mL in those who had not had surgery.

The post hoc analysis, which assessed patient-reported QoL outcomes following treatment suspension at baseline and every 12 weeks until progression, found no meaningful changes in the worst pain in the past 24 hours, as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form.

Patients also reported no meaningful changes in total and physical well-being scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P) and on the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions (EuroQol-5D) visual analog scale score, as well as no meaningful changes in sexual activity and urinary and bowel symptoms, based on scores from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Prostate 25 (QLQ-PR25).

Hormone treatment-related symptoms on the QLQ-PR25, however, “quickly improved but eventually began to worsen after week 97,” explained lead author Stephen J. Freedland, MD, from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, who presented the new findings at ASCO.

Dr. Freedland concluded that the EMBARK results show that enzalutamide, with or without ADT, improves metastasis-free survival vs leuprolide alone, without affecting global health-related QoL during treatment or after treatment suspension.

However, Channing J. Paller, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the research, pointed out that “patient selection is key” when choosing therapies, given that ADT has distinct adverse effects. Comorbidities and adverse effects “must be taken into consideration to help the doctor and patient make more personalized treatment choices.”
 

Treatment Intensification and QoL

Another presentation explored health-related QoL outcomes from the phase 3 PRESTO trial.

The study examined ADT intensification in 504 patients who had high-risk biochemically relapsed nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and a PSA doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomized to ADT monotherapy with degarelix or leuprolide, ADT plus apalutamide, or ADT plus apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and prednisone.

In previous data from PRESTO, the combination therapy groups both had significantly longer median PSA progression-free survival than the ADT monotherapy arm.

The latest data looked at the health-related QoL outcomes in the PRESTO population, measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, the PROMIS Fatigue tool, the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale, and the EuroQol-5D.

Ronald C. Chen, MD, MPH, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, who presented the new findings at ASCO, reported that ADT plus apalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival over ADT alone and did not meaningfully increase common treatment-related symptoms, such as hormonal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, hot flash interference, and fatigue.

However, treatment intensification with triple androgen regimen did not lead to further improvements in PSA progression-free survival but did increase the rate of serious adverse events, the time to testosterone recover, and increased hot flash interference.

PRESTO as well as EMBARK “provide a strong rationale for intensification of androgen blockade in men with high-risk biochemical recurrence after completing primary local therapy” and could even “reduce the need for subsequent treatment,” concluded Dr. Chen.
 

CBT for Managing ADT Side Effects

Up to 80% of men receiving ADT to treat prostate cancer experience night sweats and hot flashes, which are associated with sleep disturbance, anxiety, low mood, and cognitive impairments.

A third trial presented during the session looked at the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on these side effects of ADT treatment.

Initial findings from the MANCAN study found that CBT delivered by a psychologist reduced the impact of hot flashes and night sweats at 6 weeks.

The MANCAN2 study assessed QoL at 6 months among 162 patients with localized or advanced prostate cancer who underwent at least 6 months of continuous ADT and who experienced more severe hot flashes and night sweats, defined as a score of ≥ 2 on the hot flashes and night sweats problem rating scale.

Study participants were randomized to CBT plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual alone, with the intervention consisting of two CBT group sessions 4 weeks apart. Between CBT sessions, patients could refer to a booklet and CD, alongside exercises and CBT strategies.

MANCAN2 confirmed that CBT was associated with a significantly greater reduction in hot flash and night sweat scores over standard care alone at 6 weeks. Patients receiving CBT also reported better QoL, sleep, and functional status but those differences did not reach statistical significance.

By 6 months, those in the CBT group still reported better outcomes in each category, but no differences were statistically significant at this time point. Overall, however, 14% of treatment as usual alone patients discontinued ADT at 6 months vs none in the CBT arm.

“Further research is therefore needed to determine whether or not you can make this effect more durable” and to look at “the potential for CBT to support treatment compliance,” said study presenter Simon J. Crabb, PhD, MBBS, from the University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, England.
 

QoL With Radioligand Crossover

Finally, the phase 3 PSMAfore study compared ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 with abiraterone or enzalutamide in 468 taxane-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had progressed on a previous androgen receptor pathway inhibitor.

In earlier analyses, Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD, Institut Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France, reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 improved radiographic progression-free survival by 59% over androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy but did not lead to significant differences in overall survival.

In a new interim analysis, Dr. Fizazi and colleagues explored outcomes in patients eligible to cross over to ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 following androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy. Assessments of health-related QoL revealed that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to about a 40% improvement in scores on two QoL tools — 41% with FACT-P and 39% with EuroQol-5D.

On subscales of FACT-P, Dr. Fizazi reported that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 was also associated with a significantly longer time to worsening in physical, functional, and emotional well-being over standard therapy. A pain inventory score indicated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 led to a 31% improvement in the time to worsening pain intensity, as well as a 33% increase in the time to worsening pain interference.

With the treatment having a “favorable safety profile,” Dr. Fizazi said the results suggest ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 is a “treatment option” for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have undergone androgen receptor pathway inhibitor treatment.

MANCAN2 was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research. EMBARK was funded by Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, the codevelopers of enzalutamide. PRESTO was funded by Alliance Foundation Trials and Johnson & Johnson. PSMAfore was funded by Novartis. Dr. Freedland declared relationships with Pfizer and Astellas Pharma, among others. Paller declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Dendreon, Exelixis, Janssen Oncology, Omnitura, Lilly, and Bayer. Dr. Chen declared relationships with Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Crabb declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck, Amgen, Amphista Therapeutics, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, and Roche. Dr. Fizazi reported relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, and a dozen other companies.

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

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.